ALJDEC

99F-T0150-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-09-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|LESLIE SELLGREN, |§|CASE NO.: T99-0150 | | |§| | |Complainant, |§|DOCKET NO.: 99F-T0150-ROC | | |§| | |-v- |§|RECOMMENDED | | |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |License No.052278, Class C-11 of|§| | |COLT CONSTRUCTION INC., d.b.a. |§| | |BERT’S ELECTRIC & PLUMBING |§| | |COMPANY (Corp.), |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: August 31, 1999, at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on her own behalf. The Respondent appeared through authorized representative, Gary Abrahams. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on August 31, 1999. The Complainant appeared on his own behalf and the Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Gary Abrahams. 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-11 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. This is a residential matter where, as part of a purchase agreement, the Respondent performed electrical work on a residence that was purchased by the Complainant.

3. The Respondent performed electrical work pursuant to two separate agreements. The first agreement was with the previous owner and the second agreement was with the Complainant.

4. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the Respondent had complied with the terms and conditions of the second agreement.

5. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to complete its work that she felt was required by the parties’ first agreement despite repeated requests that it do so. The Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.

6. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainant’s residence.

7. The Respondent declined to comply with the corrective work order based on the assertion that the corrective work order went beyond the electrical work that was performed pursuant to the first contract with the previous owner.

8. There was no dispute that the Complainant’s residence is approximately years old and that it, evidently, has numerous areas of electrical work that fail to comply with current code requirements.

9. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the Respondent is not responsible for re-wiring the Complainant’s residence and correcting all of her electrical problems. However, the Respondent is fully responsible for ensuring that all electrical work required by the first agreement is properly completed and that all completed electrical work complies with applicable code requirements.

10. The following items were shown to have been required by the first contract and to either be incomplete or shown to fail to comply with minimum industry standards.

k) The Respondent has now obtained a required permit as directed by the corrective work order. It is recommended that the Respondent be formally admonished that when a permit is required a licensed electrician is expected to obtain the permit and request all required inspections, prior to the completion of any electrical work and without the issuance of a corrective work order.

l) The first contract, between the Respondent and the prior owner of the residence, required the Respondent to change out 23 receptacles and connect existing ground wires. The electrical receptacles, as installed by the Respondent, do not comply with applicable code requirements. The Respondent shall change the 23 electrical receptacles and properly connect all existing ground wires. All receptacles and all electrical work shall comply with applicable code requirements.

m) There is no grounded outlet in the master bedroom, the Respondent shall install a grounded electrical outlet in the Complainant’s master bedroom.

n) There is only one GFI in the kitchen. The Respondent shall properly install the second GFI. The second GFI may be installed in the hall bath if both parties agree to the relocation of the second GFI.

15. 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) (7) (Wrongful Act), (23) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class C-11 License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly accomplished the corrective actions set forth above in Finding of Facts No.10(a) through 10(d), inclusive.

It is further recommended that if the Respondent properly accomplishes the above described corrective action, on or before the effective date of this Order, then the above provided License suspension shall not take place and Citation No.T99-0150 shall be closed.

Dated this 10th day of September, 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas

Original mailed this day of September, 1999 to:

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

Transmitted by:

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