ALJDEC

98F-3263-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-01-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 6, 1999 APPEARANCES: Lucille Withington, Complainant, appeared in her own behalf No one appeared on behalf of the Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Allen Reed _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT The Complainant and Respondent entered an oral contract in approximately April of 1996, whereby the Respondent would pour a concrete slab for the Complainant’s manufactured home, a concrete driveway as well as a garage slab and stem wall, at the Complainant’s lot at 17200 West Bell Road. Work commenced on or about June 25, 1996, with the pouring of the concrete for the house pad. There are no control joints in the concrete pad which is approximately 52 feet by 25 feet 5 inches. The home was installed on the premises on or about June 28, 1996. On August 14, 1996, the Complainant paid the Respondent $5,875.00 in cash at the Respondent’s request even though the garage stem wall, garage slab and the driveway had not been satisfactorily completed and the house pad was the wrong dimensions. The garage stem wall was cracked where it was to join the pad for the house. The garage slab was not level and the wrong dimensions. The wrong size J bolts had been installed by the Respondent. There was standing water on the garage floor which required a portion of the concrete to be cut out. The Respondent agreed to correct this condition. The driveway was installed but required numerous saw cuts because it was not smooth. The Respondent left debris (possibly clapboard pieces) partially imbedded in the concrete of the house pad. The Complainant had to chip it out. The Respondent made some attempts to correct the defective work and otherwise complete the job through 1997 and part of 1998. The Complainant filed her complaint with the Registrar of Contractor (Registrar) on June 15, 1998. Inspector John Ratcliff (Ratcliff) of the Registrars Office performed an inspection of the concrete work at the Complainant’s. On July 28, 1998, Ratcliff issued a Corrective Work Order (CWO). The CWO required the Respondent to correct the cracks under the manufactured home by the appropriate means. Ratcliff noted the lack of control joints. The CWO also required the Respondent to correct the crack between the house pad and the garage stem wall, the ponding of water in front of the garage door and the chips in the driveway. The Respondent made some attempt to fill the cracks of the house slab with a concrete type of material. This material did not adhere and soon broke out of the cracks. The Respondent saw cut a drain path for the ponding problem at the garage. The water runs toward an electrical box and saturates the area around the box. This is inadequate corrective work. The other required corrections were not done. The Complainant has termite problems and attempts to treat the house pad by drilling indicate that there are hollow spots and the pad has a tendency to splinter. Conclusions Of Law The Citation and Complaint allege violation of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(3) violation of any rule, specifically A.A.C. R4-9-108 relating to workmanship standards, (A)(7), the doing of a wrongful or fraudulent act resulting in substantial injury, and (A)(23), failure to do appropriate corrective work.

The Respondent did not appear at the hearing and no good cause was shown for the failure to appear. The evidence presented by the Complainant was not controverted and it is accepted as credible and otherwise competent. The problems with the concrete work noted in the Findings of Fact establish the violation of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(3)/A.A.C. R4-9-108. The failure to correct as required by Ratcliff’s CWO establishes the violation of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(23). The egregious nature of the original defective work, coupled with the failure to properly correct prior to the complaint being filed with the Registrar, the lengthy period of time in which proper work and correction could have been accomplished prior to said complaint, the continuing failure to make any reasonable effort to properly correct certain defects and the failure to even address some of the items which were to be corrected pursuant to the CWO, constitute wrongful acts within the meaning of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(7). Since the Respondent did not appear, there was no evidence presented which would excuse or otherwise mitigate the seriousness of the violations. The evidence does not support a recommendation which would provide additional time to the Respondent who, based on the evidence presented, has shown an incapacity to do the work or a complete disregard for doing the work, in a workmanlike manner. Recommended Order In view of the foregoing it is recommended commencing on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter that the Respondent’s Class C-09 license be revoked. Done this day, January 12, 1999.

_________________________________ ALLEN REED Administrative Law Judge

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

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By _______________________________

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

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