ALJDEC

98F-2788-ROC-com · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-08-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: August 11, 1999. APPEARANCES: Complainants appeared personally. Respondent did not appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Decision are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The scope of the instant hearing is to determine if Respondent has complied with the Registrar’s prior Order in this matter. 2. The commencement of the hearing was delayed for 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of Respondent’s representative. 3. It is determined that Respondent did undertake remedial repairs to its deficient workmanship after the issuance of the Registrar’s Order. 4. The remedial repairs have not been completed. 5. There is credible evidence that Respondent’s workmanship of the remedial repairs was worse than its original deficient workmanship. Examples of the deficient remedial repairs include: edge tape bubbling and peeling in almost every installed area; veneer finish on cabinet end panels does not extend all the way to the bottom of the panel; cabinets not to proper height; cabinet left of pantry is ½” lower than the pantry by the oven; and the vent hood has not been remade to the proper size. 6. The Registrar’s assigned inspector performed a pre-hearing jobsite inspection to view Respondent’s remedial work. The inspector observed partially assembled doors with scattered dust and debris. After viewing Respondent’s remedial work, the inspector concluded that the remedial work was worse than the original deficient workmanship. 7. Complainants have lived in their new home for approximately 16 months without having the use of kitchen, bathroom and laundry room cabinets. Respondent’s failure to timely comply with the Registrar’s Order in this matter has been extremely disruptive to the Complainant’s use of their home. 8. There is no credible evidence that Complaint have denied Respondent or its workers access to their home for the performance of the ordered remedial work. On the contrary, it is determined that Complainants were highly motivated to allow Respondent access to perform such work so that they could have their house in order.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Respondent failed to timely perform the required remedial work to correct its deficient workmanship as required by the Registrar’s prior Order. 2. Respondent’s Class C-32 license should be suspended pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Registrar’s prior Order.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent’s Class C- license be suspended by the Registrar of Contractors pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Registrar’s prior Order in this disciplinary matter. Done this day, August 23, 1999.

______________________________________ BRIAN BRENDAN TULLY Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 1999, to:

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

ATTN: Joyce Armijo

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826