ALJDEC

99F-0210-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-01-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 6, 1999 APPEARANCES: Howard and Helen Bollman, Complainants, in their own behalf Joey Jamison, Respondent , in his own behalf ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Allen Reed

Findings Of Fact The Complainants have a Jacuzzi tub in their home. The pump and motor for the tub are outside the home. The system was approximately 21 years old and had never required repair. In July, 1998, the pump and motor were not working properly due to a short in the electrical system. The motor would sometimes turn on automatically and at other times would fail to operate when turned on. The Complainants had no idea as to what was causing the problem and saw the Respondent’s advertisement in the newspaper. The pertinent part of the advertisement stated: “Elec. All & Any remodels, jacuzzi, computer…” On July 6, 1998, the Complainants called the Respondent’s business and requested a service call. The dispatch received by the Respondent indicated the Jacuzzi required troubleshooting and the circuit panel needed labeling.

The Respondent contacted the Complainants at their home on July 7, 1998. He isolated the Jacuzzi circuit and checked, identified and labeled the other circuits. He switched the power and neutral leads from the circuit panel to the Jacuzzi motor to conform to current wiring practice and to reroute the power lead from the panel to the switch rather than directly to the motor. He noted that the electrical cord “pigtail” from the motor was split where it entered the motor and possibly causing a short to the motor. The electrical receptacle was also somewhat aged and worn, and was replaced by the Respondent. The Respondent did not finish on July 7, 1998. He was at the Complainants home approximately two hours. He returned on July 8, 1998, and installed a new electrical cord for the one which was split at the end. Upon turning the motor on, it again shorted out and after further checking, the Respondent found a short at the connector in the motor. Further troubleshooting showed that the motor was burned out and would have to be replaced. The Respondent does not remove or install Jacuzzi motors and told the Complainants he did not have the tools to do this kind of work. He gave the Complainants the name of another company which referred the Complainants to yet another company which installed a new pump and motor for $371.00. The Respondent charged the Complainants for two hours of work on July 7 and one hour on July 8, 1998. The hourly labor charge is $49.50 for a total of $148.50 for labor. The charge for the replacement electrical cord was $28.15 and the receptacle was $2.50, the entire bill including tax was $181.24. The cost of the electrical cord was based on the cost listed in a trade publication of costs and generally used by the Respondent. Complainants paid the bill Shortly thereafter the Complainant, Mr. Bollman, saw what he believed to be a similar electrical cord at a local home supply outlet. The cost was $6.35. The instant complaint was filed with the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on July 17, 1998. Inspector John Ratcliff (Ratcliff) of the Registrar’s Office informed the Complainants that the Registrar did not control contractor charges. The Complainants requested a hearing. Conclusions of Law The Citation and Complaint allege violation of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(1), abandonment and (7) wrongful or fraudulent conduct. The basic complaint is that the time spent by the Respondent was not justified by the amount of work done, that the cost of the electrical cord was unreasonable, the Respondent’s advertisement was misleading and that the Respondent should have had the tools to remove the Jacuzzi motor. The evidence suggests that the Respondent’s actions were reasonable and prudent within the context of what he was asked to do and the problems he encountered. There is no established standard with respect to how long the various activities the Respondent had to engage in, would normally take. The three hour labor charge cannot be said to be excessive as a matter of law. The cost of the electrical cord was based on a cost established by an independent publication and the cost submitted by the Complainant was not shown to be for an identical cord. The Respondent’s advertisement was potentially misleading to the extent that the Complainant could have believed the Respondent would remove and replace the electric motor. However, considering the brevity of the advertisement, this should have been clarified between the parties before the Respondent was asked to begin the job. There is insufficient evidence to find that the Respondent made any representation that he would remove or replace the motor or that he would do anything more than electrical work which was done. Recommended Order In view of the foregoing it is recommended that the Citation and Complaint upon which it is based be dismissed. Done this day, January 7, 1999.

_________________________________ Allen Reed Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of January, 1999, to:

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

By _______________________________

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

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