ALJDEC

98F-Y0019-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-02-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|NANCY LEE BOWMAN, |(|Case No.: Y98-0019 | | |(| | |Complainant, |(|Docket No.: 98F-Y0019-ROC | | |(| | |vs. |(| | | |(| | |License No. 091983, Class C-09 of|(|Recommended | |Greg Gene Hoffman, d.b.a. |(|Decision and Order | |HOFFMAN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CO.|(| | |(OWN), |(| | | |(| | |Respondent. |(| | | |(| | | |(| | | |(| |

HEARING: Wednesday, February 17th, 1999; 8:30 p.m. Appearances: The Complainant, Ms. Nancy Lee Bowman, appeared in her own behalf. The Respondent appeared through the owner Mr. Greg Gene Hoffman.

Administrative Law Judge: Grant Winston

This matter was brought on for administrative hearing on February 17th, 1999. Testimony was heard and other evidence admitted and, based on the record taken as a whole, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Complainant, Nancy Lee Bowman, in early 1997, purchased a mobile home from the dealer Classic Homes to be set on her lot in Wellton, Arizona. Classic Homes obtained the services of Foothills Home Installers to install the home on her lot. Foothills Home Installers, in turn, retained the services of Respondent to do the concrete work incidental to placing the home on the lot.

2. Complainant wanted the home to be set at ground level, and wanted the home to be handicapped accessible. Most of the work in setting the home on the lot was performed by others besides the Respondent.

3. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the way the house was set on the lot, and she filed a Complaint with the Registrar of Contractors on August 29th, 1997. She also complained to the Arizona Office of Manufactured Housing regarding the way the home was set on her lot.

4. Her Complaint before the Registrar mentions items, and her testimony and evidence at hearing included items, other than the work performed by the concrete contractor who is the Respondent herein.

5. As to the work actually performed by the Respondent, there is no evidence that the work was below workmanship standards. On the contrary, the evidence is that the home was set at ground level, and the concrete was poured within industry standards.

6. Expert testimony on behalf of the Respondent was given by Mr. Ross Wait, who is currently the Chair of the Arizona Board of Manufactured Housing, and who personally has over 20 years professional experience in all aspects of the manufactured home industry. He is a licensed professional in the contracting field, holding Class B and B-01 licenses from the Registrar. He has been involved in the installation of between 5,000 and 6,000 manufactured homes. He is familiar with the installation of Complainant’s home and testified that none of the work done by Respondent was defective or faulty in any way. According to Mr. Wait the Complainant’s home was, indeed, set at ground level, and all the concrete work was accessible to handicapped individuals. He testified that the setting of the home met all the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the community. He testified that a soil analysis is not industry standard practice, and that the concrete contractor is not required to have a termite pre-treatment performed.

7. This complaint was assigned to Mr. C. E. Jorgensen, Inspector/ Investigator with the Registrar of Contractors. Mr. Jorgensen conducted a job-site inspection on September 22nd, 1997. His inspection revealed to him no wrongdoing of Respondent, including no evidence to him of building code violations. He concluded that Respondent’s concrete work was acceptable. Mr. Jorgensen therefore declined to issue a Corrective Work Order, and notified the Complainant in writing that if she had additional evidence to support her complaint, she could request a hearing.

8. It therefore appears from the totality of evidence that the Respondent’s concrete work was acceptable in this job, and that many of the items of Complainant’s complaint were not performed by Respondent and were not his responsibility.

Conclusions of Law

1. This hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §32- 1156 and A.R.S. §41-1092.

2. The Respondent herein is charged in the Citation and Complaint with possible violation of A.R.S. §32-1154.A.3., namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, Poor Workmanship.

3. The evidence of record does not support a conclusion that Respondent violated A.R.S. §32-1154.A.3., namely A.A.C. R4-9-108, as set forth in the Citation and Complaint.

Recommended Order

Wherefore, it is hereby recommended that Citation and Complaint Number Y98-0019, together with the Complaint on which it is based, be dismissed.

Dated this 25th day of February, 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of March, 1999, to:

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

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