ALJDEC

99F-T0264-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-05-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

| |§| | |JENNIFER L. STARR, |§|CASE NO.: T99-0264 | | |§| | |Complainant, |§|DOCKET NO.: 99F-T0264-ROC | | |§| | |-v- |§|RECOMMENDED | | |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |License No.122660, Class B- of |§| | |Robert Elder Cunningham |§| | |d.b.a. R.E.C. CONSTRUCTION |§| | |CO.(Indiv.), |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: May 3, 1999, at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on hers own behalf. The Respondent appeared on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on May 3, 1999. The Complainant appeared on her own behalf and the Respondent appeared on his own behalf. 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 entered into a written rehabilitation contract to perform construction work on the Complainant’s residence.

3. During the course of construction work the Complainant became increasingly dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and the parties had repeated, sharp, personal confrontations at the job-site.

4. There was no dispute that Pinal County, which funded the rehabilitation project, played a constant role in inspecting the property, ensuring that the work complied with the rehabilitation contract and acting as a go- between as the parties became increasingly hostile towards each other. Although all change orders had to be processed through the county, credible evidence established that the construction contract was strictly between the Complainant and the Respondent.

5. The Complainant was very dissatisfied with the Respondent substitution of rubberized roofing material for the rolled roofing material originally specified in the parties’ written rehabilitation contract.

6. The Complainant’s dissatisfaction increased when the roof failed and allowed moisture into the interior of her residence.

7. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and with his failure to properly correct the moisture damage in the interior of her residence despite repeated requests that he do so. The Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.

8. 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.

9. The Respondent complied with portions of the corrective work order.

10. The application of a rubberized emulsion roof rather than a rolled roof was shown to comply with an agreement between the parties.

11. Credible evidence established that the rubberized emulsion roof has unacceptable ponding and soft spots and that the roof still has a minor leak. The Respondent shall properly repair, or replace, the roof.

12. The Respondent is found to be responsible for the proper correction of all interior moisture damage actually caused by the roof failure.

13. The parties are in sharp dispute as to extent of damage to the residence and the Complainant’s personal items. The parties dispute regarding the extent of damage to the residence and to the Complainant’s personal items and the Complainant’s claim for an hourly wage for her work on the residence are found to be good faith dispute and should be resolved, if at all, in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

14. The facia has not been properly sealed or completely painted. The Respondent shall cause the facia to be properly sealed and painted. The Respondent shall ensure that there is no bare wood showing.

15. The interior drywall patches were shown to be very poorly done. The interior drywall patches do not comply with applicable industry standards. The Respondent shall cause the interior dry wall patches to be properly repaired or replaced and ensure that all final drywall repairs are properly touched-up.

16. The Respondent has completed the electrical work on the residence. The Respondent shall ensure that a credit is issued for the modified change order for wiring from the meter to the house.

17. 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 accomplished corrective actions set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos.11, 14, 15 and 16.

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.T99-0264 shall be closed.

Dated this 6th day of May, 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas

Original mailed this day of May, 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: -----------------------