ALJDEC

98F-A0258-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-08-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

| |§| | |BRAD PAGE, |§|CASE NO.: A98-0258 | | |§| | |Complainant, |§|DOCKET NO.: 98F-A0258-ROC | | |§| | |-v- |§| | | |§|RECOMMENDED | |License No.122460, Class C-08 of |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |WARGO CONSTRUCTION, INC., |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: August 13, 1998, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through his attorney, Bob Kozak. The Respondent appeared through its vice-president, Karen Wargo. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on August 13, 1998. The Complainant appeared through his attorney, Bob Kozak, and the Respondent appeared through its vice-president, Karen Wargo. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the holder of a Class C-09 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent installed a concrete driveway for the Complainant’s new residence. Within two years of the concrete’s installation the Complainant noticed spalling, chipping, and cracking in the driveway.

3. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct its work despite repeated requests that it do so. The Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.

4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection. The assigned agency inspector found that the Complainant had been using an ice melter on the concrete driveway and that, consequently, the Respondent was not responsible for its correction.

5. The Complainant disagreed with the said inspector’s finding and requested a formal hearing.

6. Credible evidence established that the Respondent utilized 3500 p.s.i. concrete for the driveway installation. Although this was shown to be less than the 4500 p.s.i. recommended by the U.B.C., credible evidence established that its use was approved by the local building authority and that it complied with applicable industry standards.

7. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the driveway had been installed in a workmanlike manner.

8. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the Complainant did use a product named “Ice Melter” on the concrete driveway.

9. The Ice Melter product cautions as follows: “Avoid the use of this product on vulnerable surfaces, such as: …concrete that is less than one year old.

10. Although sharply disputed by the Complainant, credible evidence established that Ice Melter was utilized on the concrete driveway while the concrete driveway was in a vulnerable condition due to its then recent pouring and that the use of the Ice Melter contributed to the failure of the concrete driveway.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The credible evidence record does not support any finding that the Respondent has violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154(A).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Citation No. A98- 0258 be dismissed.

Dated this 28th day of August, 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of August, 1998 to:

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

Transmitted by:

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