ALJDEC

99F-C989245-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 1999-07-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|RICK AND TERESA SOUTH, |(|Case No.: 98-9/245 | | |(| | |Complainants, |(|Docket No.: 99F-C989245-BFS | | |(| | |vs. |(| | | |(| | |CLAYTON HOMES, LOT #281, |(|Recommended | |License No. 6849, Class D-12, |(|Decision and Order | |and |(| | |LOU’S MOBILE HOME MOVERS, INC., |(| | |d.b.a. LOU’S TRANSPORT, License |(| | |No. 7107, Class I-10G, |(| | | |(| | |Respondents. |(| | | |(| |

HEARING: June 28th, 1999; 9:00 a.m. Appearances: The Complainants, Rick and Teresa South, appeared in their own behalf. The Respondent Clayton Homes, Lot #281, was represented by Mr. Robert W. Barnard, Regional Manager. The Respondent Lou’s Transport, was represented by Mr. Roger L. Johnson, II, Vice President. Administrative Law Judge: Grant Winston

This matter was brought on for administrative hearing on Monday, June 28th, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. Testimony was heard, and other evidence admitted to record, and based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainants, a married couple, purchased their mobile home from the Respondent Clayton Homes in 1998. The mobile home was installed by Respondent Lou’s Transport.

2. Complainants noticed several defects in their new home and initiated complaints to have them resolved. Eventually they went to the Department of Building and Fire Safety, Office of Manufactured Housing, with their complaints. An Inspector from the Department went to the Complainants’ home and inspected it on December 4th, 1998. He noted seven separate items on his inspection report, six of which were verified. Four of the six verified items the manufacturer was to correct. These were corrected prior to hearing and were not at issue. The remaining two items were Items ##5 and 6.

3. The inspection report made it the dealer’s (Clayton’s) responsibility to correct Item #5. That was: “Carpet needs to be restretched.” “Master bedroom closet.”

4. The inspection report made it dealer’s and installer’s (Lou’s) responsibility to correct Item #6. That was: “Piece of border/trim missing.” “To right of master bedroom door at living room marriage line.”

5. These items were not corrected within the time frame allowed the Respondents by the Department in its “30-DAY NOTICE” issued on December 8th, 1998.

6. Thereafter Complainants were not willing to cooperate with the Respondents as they were unsure if Respondents should be allowed to correct after the thirty days, and what consequences might be the result of their allowing them to do so.

7. A Citation and Complaint was issued by the Department on February 10th, 1999. A Notice of Hearing was issued on May 5th, 1999. This hearing was held June 28th, 1999.

8. There was no dispute at the hearing that neither Item #5 nor #6 had been corrected. Both parties admit their responsibility to correct. Both parties had made efforts to correct later than the thirty-day period they had been allowed.

9. Clayton showed at hearing that there had been some confusion between the Respondents over which of them would re-stretch the carpet. Clayton also sent the parts request for the trim to the wrong manufacturer factory by mistake. Clayton testified at hearing that now they know the particular trim which is supposed to be replaced in the Complainants’ home is no longer available to them. However, Clayton can supply a suitable alternative trim of the same or substantially same quality, and similar style, from their available selection.

10. Both Respondent state their willingness to correct the two items within the meaning of the verified complaints.

Conclusions of Law

1. This hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §41- 1092, and A.R.S. §41-2183.

2. Pursuant to Citation and Complaint issued by the Department’s Assistant Director, Respondents are charged with violations of A.R.S. §41-2186.1., 12., 19., and 20.

3. There is in the record taken as a whole a preponderance of credible evidence to conclude, and it is here concluded, that Respondents did violate A.R.S. §41-2186.1., 12., and 19. (Subsection 20. was cited as a manufacturer’s violation, and, as found, the manufacturer corrected the items in the verified complaint and sign-off form before hearing, and therefore those items were disposed of pre-hearing.) Recommended Order

In view of the foregoing it is hereby recommended that the Respondents shall correct Item #6 in the verified complaint by appropriately installing in Complainants’ mobile home Complainants’ choice of a border trim of substantially the same style and quality from the stock available to Respondents, and Respondent Clayton shall correct Item #5 by satisfactorily re-stretching the carpet mentioned in the verified complaint, and both Respondents shall provide the Department of Building and Fire Safety with satisfactory proof of their having performed these corrections on or before September 23rd, 1999.

It is further recommended that in the event the Respondents fail to correct the items of their respective responsibilities on or before September 23rd, 1999, as indicated in the immediately preceding paragraph, then Respondent Clayton’s Class D-12 License Number 6849, and Respondent Lou’s Class I-10G License Number 7107, shall be suspended on that date and remain suspended until such time as the Department receives satisfactory proof that the items not corrected have been corrected.

Dated this 9th day of July, 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of July, 1999, to:

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

Transmitted by:

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