ALJDEC

98F-M0823-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-12-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 28, 1999 APPEARANCES: The true Complainant is Wasim Farah. The Respondent was represented by its area manager, Roger Arms. 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 Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent was the general contractor who constructed Wasim Farah’s residence. 2. The Citation and Complaint is amended to provide that Wasim Farah is the true Complainant in this matter. 3. Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors alleging that Respondent violated the provisions of the state’s contracting laws due to cracks in the exterior stucco and defective vinyl glazing strips in windows located on the south and west sides of his residence. 4. As a result of the filed complaint, the Registrar’s assigned inspector performed a jobsite inspection on February 4, 1998, to view the areas of alleged deficiencies. That inspection resulted in the issuance of a Corrective Work Order by the inspector directing Respondent to properly repair the vinyl glazing strips in the south and west windows. 5. The inspector also determined that the cracks in the stucco did not exceed allowable tolerances. Complainant has accepted the inspector’s opinion concerning the cracks in the stucco and, therefore, he did not present any evidence of excessive cracking at the hearing. 6. The vinyl glazing strips were manufactured by Glazing Industries, who is not a licensed contractor. The strips are heat resistant and widely used in the Phoenix metropolitan construction industry. 7. Respondent undertook several repairs to the vinyl glazing strips in the affected south and west windows. 8. The windows with the defective vinyl inserts are recessed approximately 4” from the interior room walls. Complainant has blinds on those windows which are approximately 2” from the windows and have less than ¼” gaps on each vertical side. When the window blinds are lowered they create a good tight fit. 9. In June of 1999 the inspector performed another jobsite inspection in response to Complainant’s report that the repaired vinyl glazing strips had failed to properly perform. The inspector opined that the vinyl glazing strips failed due to heat being trapped between the window blinds and the windows. The inspector changed his opinion set forth in the prior Corrective Work Order and concluded that the vinyl glazing strips were a manufactured item. Being a manufactured item, the inspector opined that Glazing Industries, the product manufacturer who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Contractors, was responsible for the product rather than Respondent. 10. It is determined that heat trapped between the windows and the blinds on the south and west side of Complainant’s residence caused the failure of the vinyl glazing strips to properly perform at those locations. Therefore, Respondent is not responsible for the failure of the defective vinyl glazing strips. 11. The vinyl glazing strips in the windows other than at the south and west sides of the residence are found to perform properly. 12. Respondent’s employees have suggested to Complainant that the lowering of the top of the window blinds would assist the venting of the trapped heat causing the vinyl glazing strips to become damaged. Complainant has not implemented that suggestion.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Registrar of Contractors has jurisdiction over Respondent’s contracting activities in this matter. 2. The Registrar of Contractors does not have jurisdiction over manufacturers such as Glazing Industries, the manufacturer of the subject vinyl glaze strips. 3. The evidence of record is insufficient to establish that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7), (23) and (3); namely Rule R4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Citation and Complaint in this matter be dismissed.

Done this day, January 11, 2000.

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2000, to:

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

By ___________________________

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

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