2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. contracting is defined in part as,"the reconstruction, alteration,renovation,repair,modernization, conversion,improvement,removal,demolition,or the construction of an addition to any pre-existing owner occupied building containing at least one but not more than four dwelling units." Id. at§ 1. In this case,the transaction was to improve the complainant's primary, residence,which was a preexisting building containing one dwelling unit Therefore,this hearing officer concludes that OCABR does have subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. OCABR has the burden of proof to show by substantial evidence that the respondent violated specific provisions of the Home Improvement Contractor Act See MG.L. c.30A, §14(7xe). The complainant alleged that the respondent committed two violations of the Home Improvement Contractor Act In this case, OCABR met the burden of proof with respect to both allegations. _. First,the complainants alleged-that the respondent abandoned the.project_vvithoutjustification,.in--�--. W _ violation of M.G.L. c. 142A, § 17(2). A project is considered abandoned when a contractor wholly deserts a project, leaving it unfinished. Abandonment is justified only when the contractor has a good cause reason for halting the construction. Based on the undisputed sworn testimonies of the complainants and the documentary record which corroborates those testimonies,this hearing officer concludes that substantial evidence establishes that the respondent abandoned the project without justification.Evidence shows that the respondent demonstrated a pattern of evasive conduct and failed to take meaningful steps to correct work fundamental to the project and otherwise keep the project moving in a manner consistent with the complainants' contractual • ' expectations.The evidence also shows that the respondent wholly deserted the project by not only failing to continue work and failing to respond to the complainants'requests for updates and performance,but also by seeking to remove his name from the building permit while within the stipulated timeframe for correcting the problems that arose after the first and only day of work(Exhibits 10& 12).Although the respondent cited an irretrievable breakdown in communication as the reason for withdrawal,there is nothing in the record that suggests the respondent's abandonment was of a justifiable nature or that there is merit to that claim. The respondent was not present at the hearing to refute the complainants' testimonies or submit evidence on his behalf. Second,the complainants alleged that the respondent executed a contract for residential contracting that did not contain terms required by§17(17)(b)and § 2 of the Home Improvement Contractor Act The contract forhome.improvements did not contain the registration-number of the contractor, as § 2(2) requires;the date on which the work under the contract was scheduled to begin and the date on which said work was scheduled to be substantially completed, as § 2(3)requires; a clear and conspicuous notice that all contractors and subcontractors must be registered with OCABR and that all inquiries about a contractor or subcontractor relating to a registration should be directed to OCABR, as §2(8)requires; a statement informing the homeowner(i)of any and all necessary permits, (ii)that it shall be the obligation of the contractor to obtain said permits,and(iii)that homeowners who secure their own permits will be excluded from the guaranty fund,as § 2(10)requires; or a statement in ten point bold font directly above the signature line warning the complainant not to sign the contract if there are any blank spaces, as § 2(8) requires(Exhibits 2&3).Therefore,this hearing officer concludes that substantial evidence establishes that the respondent violated§17(17)(b)by violating§ 2 of the Home Improvement Contractor Act. Administrative Penalties • For each violation of the Home Improvement Contractor Act that is established by substantial evidence, the hearing officer may impose an administrative penalty of up to two thousand dollars($2,000.00). M.G.L.c. 142A, § 18. See also 201 C.M.R. 18.03(4). In addition,the hearing officer may reprimand a Page 5 of 7