that SEPTA’s initial efforts to repair the damage were insufficient, allowing rodents to enter the premises and raising the company’s heating bills); id. at 87-88 (explaining that a "more than days”-long pipe welding operation by SEPTA, which was undertaken across the driveway entrance, caused the company to lose a number of purchase orders); see also id. at 99-100 (indicating that the advent of "quick copy" shops had had little effect Appellees’ business, largely due to the latter’s affiliation with various unions). 10 . Although the trial court, as fact finder, may reject the testimony of any witness on credibility grounds, even when it is uncontro-verted, the court may not do so arbitrarily. See generally Fraternal Order of Police v. PLRB, 557 Pa. 586, 592-93, 735 A.2d 96, 99 (1999) (<HOLDING>). The need for an articulated, reasoned basis
holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious recognizing that arbitrary and capricious decision making by the factfinder implicates an error of law holding that an agencys decision is to be set aside only if it is arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law  holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision holding that under the arbitrary and capricious standard this court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment