ALJDEC

99F-T0609-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-09-21

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|TINA DECKER, |§| | | |§|CASE NO.: T99-0609 | |Complainant, |§| | | |§|DOCKET NO.: 99F-T0609-ROC | |-v- |§| | | |§| | |License No.130855, Class C-61 |§|RECOMMENDED | |of |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |A OK REMODELING INC. (Corp.), |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: September 15, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on her own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its attorney, Peter Beren. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on September 15, 1999. The Complainant appeared on her own behalf and the Respondent appeared through its attorney, Peter Beren. 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-61 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent performed reconstruction work on the complainant’s residence.

3. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct its work despite repeated requests that it do so. The Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.

4. 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.

5. Credible testimony, produced at hearing, established that the Respondent did perform corrective action on all of the items set forth in the corrective work order. However, credible evidence also established that the following items still constitute unacceptable workmanship and require proper repair, or replacement, by the Respondent:

f) The carpeting on the north and south porches and around the above ground swimming pool has now been installed but does not comply with minimum applicable industry standards. The Respondent shall properly repair, or replace, the out-door carpeting on the north and south porches and around the above ground swimming pool.

g) The caulking in the master bedroom bath has failed at the splash by the wall. The Respondent shall properly replace the caulking.

h) The wall base trim is in the way of the door in the master bath. The Respondent shall properly repair, or replace, the base trim.

i) The painting in the master bath does not comply with applicable industry standards. The Respondent shall properly repaint the master bath.

j) There is still an approximately 1” hole in the drywall by the closet in the master bedroom. The Respondent shall properly correct the hole in the drywall.

k) The molding on the wall in the kitchen area does not meet industry standards and requires correction. The Respondent shall properly repair the molding in the kitchen area.

l) A portion of the wall paneling in the kitchen area has buckled. The Respondent shall properly repair, or replace the buckled wall paneling in the kitchen area.

m) The exterior metal handrail on the porch is out of plumb and is not properly installed. The Respondent shall properly correct the installation of the metal handrail.

n) There are several loose and baggy screens on the front porch. The Respondent shall properly correct all loose and baggy screens.

o) The lattice work around the swimming pool does not comply with minimum industry standards. The Respondent shall properly repair, or replace, the lattice work.

p) The skirting around the bottom of the Complainant’s residence does not comply with minimum industry standards. The Respondent shall properly repair the skirting.

q) The Complainant is still experiencing a rodent problem under her residence. The Respondent, utilizing a properly licensed pest control contractor, shall cause the area to be treated for rodents.

r) The Respondent shall comply with its agreement with the Complainant and issue written deductive change orders deleting the sum of $1,300.00 for work that was to be performed in the Complainant’s small bedroom and giving the Complainant a credit for $50.00 for cleaning expenses.

19. The remaining enumerated items presented at hearing were either insufficiently proven to be workmanship deficiencies or were shown to have been corrected to within minimum industry tolerances.

20. 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) (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class C-61 License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly caused the accomplishment of the corrective actions set forth above in Findings of Fact Nos. 5(a) through 5(m), 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.T99-0609 shall be closed.

Dated this 21st 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:

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