ALJDEC

98F-H0201-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-06-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|PAUL BEKOLAY, |§| | | |§|CASE NO.: H98-0201 | |Complainant, |§| | | |§|DOCKET NO.: 98F-H0201-ROC | |-v- |§| | | |§| | |License No. 030322, Class C-53 |§|RECOMMENDED | |of |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |Preston C. Penrod and |§| | |David Adkins d.b.a. PENROD |§| | |DRILLING CO. (PTR), |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| |

HEARING: May 10, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through his attorney, Martin C. Rogers. The Respondent appeared through Preston C. Penrod. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on May 10, 1999. The Complainant appeared through his attorney, Martin C. Rogers, and the Respondent appeared through Preston C. Penrod. 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-53 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. This is a residential matter where the parties entered into an oral agreement for the Respondent to drill a water well on the Complainant’s property. There was no written agreement and the parties are in complete disagreement as to the terms of their oral agreement.

3. There was no dispute that the Respondent did drill a water well for the Complainant.

4. Credible evidence established that the Respondent was paid the sum of $8,400.00 for the new well installation.

5. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the type of well casing that Respondent utilized and the installation of the well casing complied with applicable industry standards for such wells.

6. There was no dispute that the Complainant then installed a pump in the new water well.

7. There was no dispute that the pump failed after approximately 6 months and that the Complainant attempted to remove the pump from the well but that the pump became lodged in the well casing and that the Complainant was unable to remove the failed pump from the water well.

8. Credible evidence established that the Complainant then asked the Respondent for assistance in removing the failed pump. The Respondent then sent out a crew to remove the failed pump.

9. Credible evidence established that the Respondent, inadvertently, damaged the well casing while removing the failed pump.

10. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the well has not been disinfected and that a proper surface seal has not been installed over the new well. Applicable code requires that the water well be properly disinfected and that the well be properly sealed in order to comply with the minimum standards set forth by the State of Arizona, Department of Water Resources.

11. The Respondent shall repair or replace the well casing that was damaged in removing the Complainant’s failed pump. If the damaged well casing cannot be repaired or replaced, then the Respondent shall properly replace the water well.

12. The Respondent shall cause the water well to be properly sealed and disinfected as required by the State of Arizona, Department of Water Resources.

13. After the water well is properly repaired or replaced, the Complainant shall be responsible for the replacement and reinstallation of the failed pump. It is strongly suggested that the Complainant utilize a properly licensed contractor for the new pump installation in order to prevent a reoccurrence of problems with the pump installation.

14. After the completion of all required corrective action, the Respondent shall promptly remove all of its well drilling equipment from the Complainant’s property.

15. The Respondent’s actions, in failing to cause the water well to be properly disinfected and to be properly sealed and in damaging the well casing during the pump removal, are found to constitute a wrongful act.

16. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. (32-1154 (A) (7) (Wrongful Act), and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class C-53 License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly caused the accomplishment of the corrective action set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos. 9, 10 and 12.

It is further recommended that if the Respondent properly accomplishes the above described corrective action, on or before the effective date of this Order, then the above provided License suspension shall not take place and Citation No. H98-0201 shall be closed.

Dated this 3rd day of June, 1999 .

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of June, 1999 to:

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

Transmitted by: -----------------------