ALJDEC

99F-T0700-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-11-29

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|CONNIE DISCHER, |§|CASE NO.: t99-0700 | | |§| | |Complainant, |§|DOCKET NO.: 99f-t0700-roc | | |§| | |-v- |§| | | |§|RECOMMENDED | |License No. 089990, Class B-10 of|§|DECISION AND ORDER | |SEQUOIA SPAS AND SAUNAS, INC., |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: November 16, 1999, at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on her own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its attorney, Richard Block. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on November 16, 1999. The Complainant appeared on her own behalf and the Respondent appeared through its counsel, Richard Block. 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-10 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent sold and installed a “portable” spa at the Complainant’s residence. There was no dispute that the “portable” spa was “hard-wired” and installed approximately 16” away from the Complainant’s master bedroom window.

3. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the “portable spa” is permanently installed at its current location.

4. Shortly after the spa was installed, the Complainant experienced an electrical problem with the new spa and notified the manufacturer. The manufacturer gave the Complainant the name of a licensed contractor which was certified to perform warranty work on the new spa. The alternative licensed contractor then sent out a certified service technician to inspect the spa. The technician informed the Complainant that the spa was not installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and that it presented a health and safety danger.

5. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and she 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 written corrective work order on the basis of the Respondent’s disagreement with the assigned Agency Inspector and the City of Tucson on whether a permit is required for a “portable” spa installation.

8. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the City of Tucson requires a permit to be pulled, and final inspections requested, for all spa installations including “portable” spas.

9. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the installation of the spa does not comply with applicable electrical code provisions and that it does present a health and safety danger.

10. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that spa was not installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and requirements.

11. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the spa was not installed in accordance with applicable UBC requirements.

12. The Respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Tucson and shall request an inspection of the spa installation. The Respondent shall comply with any requirements imposed by the City to obtain a final approval of the spa installation.

13. The Respondent shall cause the electrical installation of the spa to be properly corrected ensuring that all safety dangers are properly eliminated. The Respondent shall utilize a properly licensed service entity specifically authorized by the manufacturer to perform warranty work on the Complainant’s spa.

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) (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 B-10 License be revoked.

It is further recommended that if the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has caused the proper accomplishment of the corrective actions set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos. 12 and 13, on or before the effective date of this Order, then the above provided License revocation shall not take place and Citation No. T99- 0700 shall be closed.

Dated this 3rd day of December, 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of December, 1999, to:

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

Transmitted by:

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