ALJDEC

99F-C989182-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 1999-04-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|TERRY DAVIS, |§| | | |§|CASE NO.: 98-9/182 | |Complainant, |§| | | |§|DOCKET NO.: 99F-C989182-BFS | |-v- |§| | | |§| | |CAVCO INDUSTRIES, L.L.C., |§|RECOMMENDED | |d.b.a. CAVCO INDUSTRIES DURANGO|§|DECISION AND ORDER | |DIVISION, |§| | |License No. 7098, Class M-9E, |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: April 22, 1999, at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on his own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its authorized employee, Paul DuRoo. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on April 22, 1999. The Complainant appeared on his own behalf and the Respondent appeared through its authorized employee, Paul DuRoo. 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 M-9E License issued by the Department of Building and Fire Safety.

2. The Complainant purchased a new residence that was manufactured by the Respondent on October 7, 1997. The manufactured home was installed on October 27, 1999.

3. Shortly after moving into the manufactured residence, the Complainant noticed several areas of unsatisfactory workmanship.

4. The Complainant 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 Arizona Department of Building and Fire Safety, Office of Manufactured Housing.

5. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned agency inspector conducted an on-site inspection and verified portions of the formal complaint.

6. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Respondent has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the verified complaint.

7. The following items of the verified complaint were shown to fail to comply with applicable minimum industry standards and require proper corrective action by the Respondent:

h) 37 items of the verified complaint relate to painting, caulking and texturing in the residence. These 37 verified items are item nos. 1, 3, 4, 8, 10(a), 21, 30(a), 30(b), 31, 34, 35(a), 37, 38, 39, 40, 41(b), 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 58(a), 58(b), 65, 71, 76, 77, 78, 82, 84, 85, 88, 91, 99, 100, 101, 104, and 106 all relate to painting, caulking and texturing and all of the said items have not been properly corrected. The Respondent shall cause the said verified items to be properly corrected to within applicable industry tolerances.

i) Item 11, nails are still popping out the bottom of the exterior panels. The Respondent shall properly correct the bottom panels and trim.

j) Item 13, there are still nails sticking out of the exterior panels. The Respondent shall properly correct the nail pop-outs.

k) Item 24, corrective work has occurred but the tile grout is not even and there is tile grout on the surrounding walls and carpeting. The Respondent shall properly correct the tile grout.

l) Item 48, corrective work has been performed on the bow but the wall is still wavy. The Respondent shall properly correct the previous repair.

m) Item 54, corrective work has been performed but it has failed to properly correct the sloppy grout work that was performed around the fireplace area. The Respondent shall cause the sloppy grout work to be properly repaired or replaced.

n) Item 81, the cabinet doors in the utility room do not close properly and appear to be warped. The Respondent shall repair or replace the warped doors and ensure that all doors close correctly.

o) Item 83, the utility room top header above the back door is bowed. The Respondent shall properly repair or replace the bowed top header.

p) Item 107, the grout on the kitchen island does not comply with applicable industry standards. The Respondent shall properly repair or replace the tile grout.

17. The remaining items of the verified complaint were shown to have been corrected to within minimum applicable tolerances.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. A.R.S. §41-2186(7) subjects a licensee’s License to sanction for a departure from or disregard of any code or any rule adopted by the board.

2. A.R.S. §41-2186(12) subjects a licensee’s License to sanction for a failure to respond relative to a verified complaint after notice of such complaint.

3. A.R.S. §41-2186(20) subjects a licensee’s License to sanction if the licensee fails to manufacture or install, in a workmanlike manner, all subassemblies, units and accessory structures which are suitable for their intended purpose.

4. The credible evidence of record established violations, by the Respondent, of the provisions of A.R.S. §41-2186(7),(12) and (20).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class M-9E License (No. 7098) be suspended for a period of 30 days commencing on June 30, 1999. It is further recommended that if the Respondent properly accomplishes the proper correction of the items set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos. 7(a) through 7(i ), inclusive, then the above provided License suspension shall not take place and that Citation No. 98-9/182 shall be closed.

Dated this 30th day of April, 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of May, 1999 to:

N. Eric Borg, Director Department of Building and Fire Safety ATTN: Michelle Castaneda East Virginia, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85004

Transmitted by:

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