ALJDEC

98F-M0422-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-09-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 8, 1998 APPEARANCES: Complainant appeared on his own behalf and Respondent failed to appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Mark A. Silver _____________________________________________________________________

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. Pursuant to contract, Respondent was retained by Complainant for the purpose of constructing a garage and enclosing a patio on his home. Complainant alleges certain deficiencies in the work performed and materials provided by Respondent and same are discussed in the findings below. 2. The parties entered into the aforementioned contract in February 1997. The contract specified completion of the project within two months. In October 1997, Complainant filed the instant complaint with the Registrar of Contractors due to the fact that the project was not completed and the fact that Respondent was still “dragging his feet” regarding performance on the contract. 3. The uncontroverted evidence of record established that the following represent the major portions of the project that were either not completed by Respondent or constitute unacceptable workmanship: a. Roof shingles are not cut on a straight line at the edge of the roof. b. No metal drip edge was installed at the edge of the roof. c. In specified areas of the drywall the drywall tape, screws, and mud are highly visible. d. There is no threshold for the man door in the garage. e. An improper bushing was utilized for electrical wiring attached to a specified metal electric box. f. Specified siding does not appear to be securely attached to the wall. g. A specified ceiling edge in the enclosed patio is not constructed in a straight line. h. A certain light fixture was not installed in the patio. i. Paint work is incomplete. j. Drywall work is incomplete. k. Water leaks into the interior of the enclosed patio area. l. Bookshelves, air-conditioning, ceiling fan, cabinets, countertop, and the new flooring have not been installed in the enclosed patio aspect of the project. m. Clean-up of the yard has not been accomplished. n. Double wide fence gate was not installed. 4. Respondent is found to have performed electrical and plumbing work which is beyond the scope of its license. This conduct not only constitutes a serious violation of the applicable charged section of the State’s Contracting laws but also a wrongful act. 5. A jobsite inspection by the appointed inspector for the Registrar of Contractors was held, pursuant to which that Agency sent Respondent a letter directing it to complete the project within a stated period of time. Notwithstanding the terms of said Agency directive, Respondent failed to comply with same. 6. A homeowner should not have to suffer through a seemingly endless effort by a contractor to properly complete a construction project that should only have taken two months to complete. The facts and circumstances presented herein would serve to justify a departure by the Registrar from its long-standing policy to allow a contractor a reasonable opportunity to complete required remedial work subsequent to conclusion of an administrative license disciplinary hearing. 7. By its failure to appear for the scheduled hearing, Respondent failed to present any matters in defense or mitigation for the charges presented herein. 8. As set forth in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors, Respondent was advised that in the event of a finding of a violation against Respondent, Respondent’s prior disciplinary record of final Registrar of Contractors’ orders may be considered in mitigation or aggravation. Accordingly, subsequent to conclusion of the instant hearing, notice was taken of official records of the Registrar of Contractors regarding any prior final disciplinary orders against Respondent and said notice revealed a prior complaint filed against Respondent which had resulted in a finding of violations of the State’s Contracting laws and a disciplinary sanction imposed against Respondent’s license. Therefore, Respondent’s prior record is properly viewed as a matter in aggravation for any disciplinary penalties to be imposed as a direct result of the instant case. 9. Notice is hereby taken of official Registrar of Contractors’ public records, which reveal that Respondent’s contracting license has been suspended since September 17, 1997 for failing to comply with a formal order of the Registrar. Such suspension does not preclude this tribunal from conducting these administrative proceedings nor from issuing separate disciplinary orders. Moreover, Respondent’s existing suspended license status must be considered when determining appropriate penalties in this case. Little, if any, motivation would exist for any Respondent contractor to undertake and complete necessary remedial work in order to avoid a suspension of an already suspended license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154A (23), (l7), (7), and (3); namely Rule R 4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Class C-61 license of Respondent shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter. Done this day, September 16, 1998.

_________________________________ MARK A. SILVER Administrative Law Judge

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

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