ALJDEC

99F-T0094-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-04-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|MICHAEL J. JOHNSON, |§|CASE NO.: t99-0094 | | |§| | |Complainant, |§|DOCKET NO.: 99f-t0094-roc | | |§| | |-v- |§| | | |§| | |License No. 131389, Class C-21R |§|RECOMMENDED | |of |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |TOLSON’S IRRIGATION REPAIR |§| | |SERVICE, INC. (CORP), |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: April 23, 1999, at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on his own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its president, Gregory Tolson. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on April 23, 1999. The Complainant appeared on his own behalf and the Respondent appeared through its president, Gregory Tolson. 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 C-21R License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. This is a residential matter where the Complainant was acting as an owner/builder. The Complainant contracted with the Respondent for the Respondent to install an automatic irrigation system at the residence.

3. There was no dispute that the Complainant was responsible for the landscaping and grading at the residence.

4. During the installation process, the Complainant became dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to promptly complete the project according to the Complainant’s demands. The Complainant then terminated the Respondent from the job-site.

5. There was no dispute that the installation process was not completed at the time of termination.

6. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship that was completed and requested that the Respondent perform corrective work on the valves that the Respondent had installed. The Respondent failed to do so and the Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.

7. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection. The assigned agency inspector declined to issue a corrective work order on the basis that the Complainant was responsible for the grading and landscaping work that had occurred after the installation of the valve boxes.

8. During the on-site inspection, the Respondent agreed to raise and reset the valve boxes.

9. Credible evidence established that the Respondent then offered to perform the agreed upon corrective action.

10. The Complainant refused access to the Respondent unless the Respondent agreed to relocate the valve boxes.

11. The Respondent declined to relocate the valve boxes and no corrective action was performed.

12. There was no credible evidence that there was anything unworkmanlike in the Respondent’s setting of the valve boxes prior to the grading and landscaping at the project.

13. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the Respondent utilized a written proposal identifying it as Tolson’s Irrigation Repair Service rather than its correct name of Tolson’s Irrigation Repair Service Inc. However, there was no credible evidence that the deletion of the “Inc.” portion of the Respondent’s proper name was intended to deceive the Complainant or misrepresent its status as a corporation.

14. There was no credible evidence that the Complainant had misinformed as to the Respondent’s corporate status nor was there any credible evidence that the Complainant had been damaged by the Respondent’s failure to use its exact name on its written proposal.

15. The Respondent is admonished that acting in the capacity of a contractor in a name other than as set forth upon its license is in violation of A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(15). The Respondent shall ensure that all of its paperwork, signs, and advertising is corrected to reflect its name exactly as set forth upon its contractor’s License.

16. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. (32-1154 (A) (15).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent be formally admonished to correct all of its paperwork, signs, and advertising to properly reflect its name exactly as set forth on its contractor’s License.

It is further recommended that Citation Number T99-0094, together with the Complainant upon which it is based, 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:

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

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