ALJDEC

99F-T0231-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-06-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|MAURO G. PERALTA, |§|CASE NO.: T99-0231 | | |§| | |Complainant, |§|DOCKET NO.: 99F-T0231-ROC | | |§| | |-v- |§| | | |§|RECOMMENDED | |License No. 089265, Class B- of |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |HIGH DESERT HOMES, INC. (CORP), |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: June 22, 1999, at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through his attorney, Neil Konigsberg. The Respondent appeared through its president, Scott Smithrud. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on June 22, 1999. The Complainant appeared through his attorney, Neil Konigsberg, and the Respondent appeared through its president, Scott Smithrud. 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 B- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent constructed a new residence for the Complainant. Shortly after moving into the new residence, the Complainant noticed several areas of unacceptable workmanship and contacted the Respondent regarding the unsatisfactory areas.

3. The Respondent indicated that it would examine and, if necessary, correct the items that the Complainant was unsatisfied with.

4. The Respondent did perform some corrective action on the residence but the Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to properly correct its work despite repeated opportunities to do so. The Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.

5. 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.

6. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Respondent failed to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of the corrective work order.

7. There was no dispute that the front doors have a minor blemish and a small unstained area. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Respondent agreed to properly stain the unstained spot and to properly correct the quarter-sized blemish on the front doors. The Respondent shall cause the front doors to be properly corrected in accordance with its job-site agreement.

8. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the French doors on the lower level of the Complainant’s residence still do not comply with minimum applicable industry standards, despite the fact that the Respondent has repeatedly replaced the doors over a period of over two years.

9. A license contractor is not entitled to endless succession of opportunities to perform corrective action on a homeowner’s residence. It is found that the Respondent should be given one, and only one, final opportunity to properly repair or replace the French doors on the lower level of the Complainant’s residence.

10. The Respondent shall cause the French doors adjacent to the main entry and the French doors in the dining room to be properly repaired or replaced. In view of the Respondent’s demonstrated inability to achieve acceptable results in this area it is strongly recommended that the Respondent retain an alternative licensed contractor to perform the required repair or replacement of the French doors in the lower level of the Complainant’s residence.

11. The Complainant is dissatisfied with the location of the leach field for his residence. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Complainant agreed to the installation of the leach field in its present location.

12. The Complainant is requesting damages for the cost of installing tile over damaged concrete in the patio area of the Complainant’s residence. There was no dispute that the tile was installed before the assigned agency inspector could conduct an on-site inspection and that, consequently, the assigned agency inspector was unable to verify any problems with the concrete under the tile work.

13. The Complainant’s request for damages for the cost of installing tile over allegedly damaged concrete is found to be a civil matter which should be resolved, if at all, in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

14. 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) (23) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9- 108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class B- License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly caused the correction of the blemish and the unstained areas on the front doors and that the Respondent has properly caused the proper repair, or replacement, of the French doors adjacent to the main entry and the French doors in the dining room.

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. T99-0231 shall be closed.

Dated this 25th day of June, 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of July, 1999 to:

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

Transmitted by:

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