ALJDEC

98F-247-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-05-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: May 21, 1998 APPEARANCES: Doris Lor, Plaintiff, in her own behalf Marc Bray, Defendant, in his own behalf ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Allen Reed _____________________________________________________________________ Findings Of Fact 1. The Defendant’s license was revoked by Order of the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar), dated August 8, 1997, after the charges in Citation and Complaint No. M97-1420 were deemed admitted for failure of the Defendant to answer the Complaint. The revocation would not take effect if corrective work was done as required by the Registrar’s inspector in the case, Van Bagley (Bagley). 2. The Defendant performed certain corrective work, and Bagley performed a job site inspection (Compliance Inspection), on October 22, 1997. The Defendant was not present at the inspection and Bagley determined that the work was not properly done because the electric wiring to the control valves was above ground and the electric sprinkler control valve was not inside an underground box. The Defendant’s license was revoked effective November 4, 1997. 3. The valve in question is an Atmospheric Anti-Siphon Assembly which according to its installation instructions must be:

“…installed at least 6 inches above all downstream piping and sprinkler heads, bubblers or drip emitters so at no time will the vacuum breaker be subjected to back pressure or drainage.”

4. Low voltage wires for the sprinkler system may be outside and are not required to be underground. 5. The Plaintiff obtained two estimates to do the work on the sprinkler system. One estimate was from Carillo Landscapes in the amount of $215.00. The work consisted of installing a ¾” vacuum breaker per code and rewiring the electric valve and installing it in ground with a valve box. 6. The estimate from George Lembrecht was $280.00 for a new back flow preventer, new copper pipe, new valve and valve box, including installation. 7. Phil Coscia (Coscia) of the Registrar’s office recommended the $215.00 bid as appropriate for the purpose of an award from the Residential Contractor’s Recovery Fund (Fund). 8. The Defendant disputed the recommended award and requested the instant hearing. 9. No inspection has been done by the City of Chandler since the corrective work or Compliance Inspection was done, to determine if the installation is currently to code. Conclusions Of Law 1. The preponderance of the substantial evidence shows that the conclusions of the Compliance Inspection are not consistent with the requirements for the installation of the Atmospheric Anti Siphon Assembly. This valve must be six inches above sprinkler heads or emitters and therefore cannot reasonably be placed underground. The testimony of Coscia was that the low voltage wiring can be outside. This being the case, the Compliance Inspection requirement to place the wiring underground is not shown to be justified. 2. The Plaintiff does not qualify as a “person injured” within the meaning of A.R.S. 32-1132(A), because the Compliance Inspection conclusion that additional work was required on the sprinkler system is not substantiated by the most competent evidence. Since it is concluded that such work is not justified by the evidence, any bid to do such work is also unjustified and any payment by the Fund on such a bid would constitute a windfall. Recommended Order In view of the foregoing it is recommended that no payment be made from the Recovery Fund and that the Plaintiff’s claim for payment from the Recovery Fund be Dismissed.

Done this day, May 22, 1998

______________________________________ Allen Reed Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 1998, to:

Mr. Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

ATTN: Joyce Armijo

By ___________________________ -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1700 West Washington, Suite 602 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826