ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final
2021A-04162-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2022-02-23
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
James L. Bonnie,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Ace Roofing, LLC
License No. ROC 332629,
RESPONDENT
No. 2021A-04162-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DECISION
HEARING: February 14, 2022
APPEARANCES: Complainant James Bonnie appeared on his own behalf. Respondent Ace Roofing, LLC failed to appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Arlo Houston appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
FINDINGS OF FACT
Ace Roofing, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 332629 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about August 6, 2021, James Bonnie (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install a new roof on Complainant’s home. The contract price was $13,180.20. Complaint paid Respondent $6,590.00.
On or about August 29, 2021, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Arlo Houston. After a September 21, 2021 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Houston issued a Written Directive to Respondent that provided as follows:
After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify
the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 25, 2021.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Submit an updated version of a contract template that complies with
the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1158
Compliance Item: 1 - "Exposed nails on roof caps."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Exposed nails on ridge in two locations.
Compliance Item: 3 - "Exposed nails below shingle edges."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Exposed plastic cap washers visible below shingle edge.
Compliance Item: 4 - "North side of house near valley is globbed with tar as if to hide something."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Roofing sealant poorly applied in this area.
Compliance Item: 5 - "North side near valley has an exposed nail on the
exposed plywood that has no underlayment at all."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
- Shingles not covering valley flashing in this area.
Compliance Item: 6 - "Same area to the left has old felt underlayment and to the right of the plywood has new synthetic underlayment."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Underlayment poorly completed in this area.
Compliance Item: 7 - "Same area does not seem to have a starter shingle
and the first shingle is laying on the metal trim."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
- Shingle not covering valley flashing.
Compliance Item: 8 - "North side has bowed metal trim."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Part of metal drip edge on North side is bowing out.
Compliance Item: 13 - "Poss mold on edge plywood that was not checked on top."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-I observed for an area of moisture infiltration under the shingles on the decking on the North side by the valley flashing.
Compliance Item: 14 - "Shingles have creases in them."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Several cracked/creased shingles present in roofing system.
Compliance Item: 15 - "Torn shingle on front facing side of house."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Two torn shingles present on West side of house.
Compliance Item: 16 - "Plastic and green circles are underneath some shingles and sealed wit tar."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Exposed plastic cap washers visible in several areas.
Compliance Item: 17 - "Roof jacks gobbed with tar and painted."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Application of roofing sealant in areas around roof jacks poorly completed.
Compliance Item: 19 - "Mismatched roof cap shingles. Lengths of 12" and
10" with different colors."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Incorrect/mismatched ridge shingles used.
Compliance Item: 20 - "Roof cap shingles showing green and not covered
with another shingle."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Excessive shingle exposure on some ridge shingles.
Compliance Item: 21 - "Globs of tar on edges near back porch that are gooey."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Areas of poorly applied roofing sealant in this area.
Compliance Item: 22 - "Raised shingles on east side."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Shingle buckling observed in several shingles on Northeast side of roof.
Compliance Item: 23 - "Valley on north side does not have shingle on a
portion of it."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Shingle not covering valley flashing.
Compliance Item: 24 - "Large amount of tar under eave on west side as if
hiding something."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Roofing sealant poorly applied in this area.
Compliance Item: 26 - "Edges were cut unevenly with shingles hanging over and shorter that the metal trim."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Shingle overhang past drip edge inconsistent throughout.
Compliance Item: 28 - "Top of roof where two valleys meet has a torn
shingle that was tarred in place."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Torn shingle present.
Compliance Item: 29 - "Shingles are not even and wavy near the top."
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Uneven shingles courses: Shingle courses are not reasonably straight and even in width in areas on both sides of North-South ridge.
Compliance Item: 31 - "Discolored shingles with grey on them ??"
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Areas of excessive shingle exposure.
Compliance Item: 32 - "Tar spots on the roof, maybe from walking in it
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
-Areas of roofing sealant on top of shingles in many areas: poorly finished/completed.
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Compliance Item: 2 - "Roof cap shingles are loose and not sealed."
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified.
-I did not observe for any ridge shingles that were loose or not sealed.
Compliance Item: 9 - "Metal trim has been pieced together with shorter strips."
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Metal drip edge installed in segments.
Compliance Item: 10 - "Nails are poking through the plywood on the exposed areas."
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. I observed bottoms of nails protruding through decking, however I could not determine if length of nails
protruding through decking did not meet standards or manufacturer specifications.
Compliance Item: 11 - "Old underlayment was not removed to the plywood
as in the contract. According to Vazquez the old felt was "mopped" on making removal difficult, new underlayment was layed over it and I was told
the old nails were removed. I thought this was ok and went along with it. But
with the nail on the north side I question that all nails have been removed."
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. I could not visually inspect for this allegation at time of JSI.
Compliance Item: 12 - "Plywood would checked by walking on it and not visually inspected because the underlayment was not removed. After walking on it he determined it was good."
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. I could not visually inspect for this allegation at time of JSI.
Compliance Item: 18 - "Some roof jacks have depressions where water can puddle."
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. I could not determine if water would puddle in areas around roof jacks.
Compliance Item: 25 - "Siding on west side was going into a channel that
had uneven shingle cuts against the siding allowing water to get into the channel and possibly make the siding wet on the bottom. I had him fill in the
area with tar, but found out later that was wrong and should not be done that way. I told Vazquez that was what I wanted."
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Complainant and respondent said that the complainant had asked for roofing sealant to be added in this area.
Compliance Item: 27 - "Possible water sealing issues around large vent for heater closet."
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. I could not determine if there were water sealing issues around the large vent.
Compliance Item: 30 - "Thin strips of shingle on the front south side, one is not sealed good."
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Complainant was unable to show me this item at time of JSI.
Compliance Item: 33 - "Overall very poor work and if shortcuts were taken
in what can be seen, what shortcuts were taken that cannot be seen."
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. This item does not contain a specific allegation for me to observe and report on.
All errors in original.
Following the issuance of the Written Directive, Respondent performed corrective work.
Investigator Houston conducted a Compliance Inspection on November 1, 2021, at which both parties were present. Investigator Houston’s Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes indicate the following:
Submit an updated version of a contract template that complies with the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1158
- Updated version of contract not submitted by Respondent
Compliance Item: 1 - "Exposed nails on roof caps."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 3 - "Exposed nails below shingle edges."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 4 - "North side of house near valley is globbed with tar as if to hide something."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 5 - "North side near valley has an exposed nail on the exposed plywood that has no underlayment at all."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 6 - "Same area to the left has old felt underlayment and to the right of the plywood has new synthetic underlayment."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 7 - "Same area does not seem to have a starter shingle and the first shingle is laying on the metal trim."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 8 - "North side has bowed metal trim."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 13 - "Poss mold on edge plywood that was not checked on top."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 14 - "Shingles have creases in them."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 15 - "Torn shingle on front facing side of house."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 16 - "Plastic and green circles are underneath some shingles and sealed wit tar."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 17 - "Roof jacks gobbed with tar and painted."
Investigator’s Observation: Work for this item does not meet standards.
Base flashing around most vent stacks, pipe jacks, and other roof penetrations scratched/marred and roofing compound/asphalt poorly removed.
Compliance Item: 19 - "Mismatched roof cap shingles. Lengths of 12" and 10" with different colors."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 20 - "Roof cap shingles showing green and not covered with another shingle."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 21 - "Globs of tar on edges near back porch that are gooey."
Investigator’s Observation: Work for this item does not meet standards. Drip edge scratched and marred; roofing compound/asphalt poorly applied.
Compliance Item: 22 - "Raised shingles on east side."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 23 - "Valley on north side does not have shingle on a portion of it."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 24 - "Large amount of tar under eave on west side as if hiding something."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 26 - "Edges were cut unevenly with shingles hanging over and shorter that the metal trim."
Investigator’s Observation: Work for this item does not meet standards. Shingle overhang past drip edge inconsistent throughout. Many shingles cut even to edge of drip edge flashing – no overlap past drip edge flashing.
Compliance Item: 28 - "Top of roof where two valleys meet has a torn shingle that was tarred in place."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 29 - "Shingles are not even and wavy near the top."
Investigator’s Observation: Work for this item does not meet standards. Shingle courses not reasonably straight: South side section of roof shingle
course exposures range from 2 1/8” to 5 7/8” and West side section of roof
shingle course exposures range from 1 1⁄4” to 2 1⁄4”.
Compliance Item: 31 - "Discolored shingles with grey on them ??"
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 32 - "Tar spots on the roof, maybe from walking in it
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 35 - "I have found that the underlayment on the eaves is installed under the metal edge. I have found that underlayment should be over the edge on eaves and under the edge on the eaves rising up."
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 36 - " On the edge near the front porch where the shingles will lift up approx 4", two seams of two shingles were put together allowing water to run between the seams and onto the underlayment. This underlayment is under the metal trim which would allow water to run onto the plywood. I question whether or not the shingles were installed per the manufacturers recommendations if these seams were put together on two different shingles.”
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
Compliance Item: 43 – “small pieces of plastic that are left underneath some of the shingle and not removed.”
Investigator’s Observation: Completed.
All errors in original.
Thereafter, Investigator Houston forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On January 6, 2022, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing advising the parties that the hearing was scheduled to convene on February 14, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., and that a Google Meet link for participation in the hearing would be issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties’ respective addresses and email addresses of record. On January 7, 2022, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an Order Setting Hearing Via Google Meet. That Order contained the Google Meet link to join the hearing by video or by telephone. It was issued to Respondent’s email address of record that had been used throughout the course of the proceedings.
On the date and at the time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Investigator Houston was present. Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Investigator Houston testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive and the Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes. Investigator Houston testified that he issued a Warning Letter to Respondent dated August 26, 2021, because Respondent’s written contract failed to contain Respondent’s business address, an estimated date of completion, and the advisement that a property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar, and therefore, Respondent was not in compliance with Registrar requirements for minimum elements of a contract.
Investigator Houston testified that the scope of the project was a full roof replacement and that there are many deficiencies in the roof installation, including: i) numerous areas of shingle courses that are not aligned; ii) exposed fasteners; iii) improperly installed underlayment which will cause moisture infiltration; iv) the overlap of shingles at the drip edge is irregular; v) some areas of shingles do not extend past the edge; and vi) poorly installed roof jacks and flashings. Investigator Houston opined that overall, the work was poorly done, was inconsistent and uneven.
Investigator Houston testified that after his compliance inspection, he determined that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive.
Complainant testified that the work performed by Respondent was poorly and unprofessionally done. Complainant testified that he agreed with Investigator Houston’s findings, however, is further concerned regarding potential deficiencies that cannot be observed. Complainant testified regarding a photograph he submitted into evidence that depicts a roof peak with corn cobs placed underneath the shingles. Complainant also testified regarding a text message he received from Respondent’s representative establishing that Respondent did not remove and replace the shingles.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 23, 2022. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 332629 was first issued on March 16, 2021, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a).
The evidence established that Respondent’s written contract did not contain all of the required elements for a written contract. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12).
The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 332629 for a period of seven (7) days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty (30) days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine terms required by A.R.S. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) within thirty (30) days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000Done this day, February 23, 2022.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Jeffrey Fleetham, Director
Registrar of Contractors-54864001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
-137160-45720000