ALJDEC

99F-M1095-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-09-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: September 16, 1999. APPEARANCES: Complainants appeared personally. Respondent was represented by its partner, Richard M. Everhart. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ 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 was the general contractor for the construction of the Complainants’ home. 2. Complainants went to Respondent’s flooring subcontractor, Floors by Design, to view samples of ceramic floor tiles and grout. 3. On or about January 19, 1998, Complainant Alexander Borton signed a Colorization Information sheet. The sheet specified that Complainants had selected 12” X 12” Impressions Cloud floor tiles and grout color 385 Customs Driftwood. 4. The selected Impressions Cloud tile is a white tile. 5. It is determined that Respondent properly caused the selected and specified floor tile and grout to be installed. 6. After the installation of the selected floor tile and grout, Complainants expressed their displeasure with the selected grout color 385 Custom Driftwood. Complainants desired to have white grout rather than the Driftwood. 7. Respondent caused the installed Driftwood grout to be sealed with a product that colored the grout white. 8. Although the installed Impressions Cloud tile contains some shading variations, it is determined that the shading variations common with ceramic tiles and, while objectionable to Complainants, meet or exceed minimum workmanship standards. 9. Respondent’s gratuitous application of the grout stain to change the color from Driftwood to white is found to meet minimum workmanship standards. 10. In response to the complaint filed in this matter, the Registrar of Contractors’ assigned inspector performed a jobsite inspection to view the areas of alleged deficient workmanship described in the complaint. After viewing those areas, the inspector concluded that the floor tile and grout met minimum workmanship standards. No corrective work order was issued by the inspector. 11. There is insufficient evidence of record to support Complainants’ allegation that the block wall installed by Respondent was not constructed per plans and specifications. 12. Complainants’ allegation of holes in their garage doors are deemed outside the scope of their complaint. However, Respondent is encouraged to investigate and address that claim.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Registrar of Contractors has the authority to discipline licensed contractors who perform deficient workmanship. A licensed contractor must perform work to minimum workmanship standards, which may be a lower standard than the consumer. 2. The evidence of record is insufficient to support a finding that Respondent has violated the provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154 (A)(7) and (3); namely Rule R4-9-108. 3. The Citation and Complaint in this matter should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Citation and Complaint in this matter be dismissed. Done this day, October 6, 1999.

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By ___________________________

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826