ALJDEC

98F-T0626-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-10-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|DIANE M. CAMPBELL, |§| | | |§|CASE NO.: T98-0626 | |Complainant, |§| | | |§|DOCKET NO.: 98F-T0626-ROC | |-v- |§| | | |§|RECOMMENDED | |License No. 087298, Class B- of |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |EAGLE ROCK BUILDERS INC., |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: September 30, 1998, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on her own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its qualifying party, Jeffrey Martin. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on September 30, 1998. The Complainant appeared on her own behalf and the Respondent appeared through its qualifying party, Jeffrey Martin. 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 B- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. This is a residential matter where an addition to the Complainant’s residence was sinking and experiencing severe cracking. The Respondent first agreed to investigate the situation and assess the extent of the damage for $1,500.00. The Respondent performed the agreed upon investigation and proposed a plan to underpin the flooring of the addition to prevent further sinking and cracking.

3. The Complainant continued to suffer sinking and cracking and 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 and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainant’s residence.

5. The Respondent failed to comply with the corrective work order.

6. There was no dispute that the parties did not have a written agreement either for the first investigative agreement, for which the Respondent was paid $1,500.00, or for the underpinning project for which the Respondent was paid an additional sum of over $4,000.00. Respondent’s failure to provide a written contract for the agreed upon work is found to be in violation of A.R.S. §32-1158.

7. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that there was no permit obtained for the project nor were there any inspections by the local building authority.

8. Credible evidence established that the Respondent’s failure to obtain a required permit was motivated by a desire to save the Complainant money. However, the obtaining of required building permits and required inspections is not an option that can be dispensed with in an effort to cut costs. The Respondent’s failure to obtain a required building permit and have necessary inspections performed is found to constitute a wrongful act.

9. Credible evidence established that despite the Respondent’s underpinning work, the addition continues to sink causing new cracking to the residence.

10. Credible evidence established that the following items constitute unacceptable workmanship attributable to, and requiring correction by, the Respondent:

k) The Respondent shall obtain all required building permits and obtain a final inspection of its work from the local building authority.

l) The Respondent shall have its method of stabilizing the addition approved of by a structural engineer.

m) The Respondent shall properly correct any roof leaks and wall, ceiling, and floor cracks that have occurred in the residence since the performance its underpinning work.

n) The Respondent shall correct the grading around the residence and ensure that water drains away from the residence.

11. 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), (23) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class B- License shall be temporarily suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly accomplished the corrective actions set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos. 9(a) through 9(d), inclusive.

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.T98-0626 shall be closed.

Dated this 23rd day of October, 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of October, 1998, to:

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

Transmitted by:

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

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