ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-05001-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-03-28
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Nabil Abou-Haidar,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Northline Roofing LLC
License No. ROC 287054,
RESPONDENT
No. 2022A-05001-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 30, 2022, with the record held open until March 8, 2023, to allow the parties to possibly resolve the issues.
APPEARANCES: Complainant Nabill Abou-Haidar appeared on his own behalf. Frank Richardson, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Northline Roofing LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Northline Roofing LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 287054 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about February 1, 2022, Nabil Abou-Haidar (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, the installation of a new roofing system.
On or about June 20, 2022, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Thomas. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Thomas 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 August 12th 2022.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: 1 - Front (entry side) upper gable trims connecting to ridge.
•The left and right gable trims overlap each other and show a visible gap rather than connect through a plumb miter joint as shown in manufacturer's details and tutorial video.
•The upper right gable trim is installed as two skewed smaller pieces rather than one continuous piece.
•The front visible sides are littered with unsightly fasters which are not per manufacturers details.
Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item verified. Front of house metal roof gable trim has poor workmanship details. Not per manufactures specifications. Trim is uneven with poor miter cut that is not centered at peak, upper right side trim appears to be at different angle that lower Trim Screw pattern not to manufactures specifications. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 3 - Poor workmanship and installation issues were discussed with the contractor in April and he agreed to replace the ridge. This was addressed in person and in writing. The contractor ordered replacement pieces and the ridge was replaced however the installation does not meet minimum workmanship standards and is visually unsatisfactory. ;
Chimney Trim/Metal Flashing
•The left (south) side is short and does not completely cover the waterproofing membrane which is exposed. The contractor refuses to repair the flashing to match the right (north) side.
Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item is verified. Ridge Ridge cap is not even where the pieces are joined together. poor workmanship at chimney flashing and trim and do not match from one side of chimney to the other. Appears a hammer was used to form in place that is unsightly and not installed per manufactures specifications. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 5 - In addition to the workmanship issues listed above, the following are complaints that have caused hardships throughout the duration of the project:
•Major delays in initial staffing of the project,
•Staffing with only one junior level installer with no or little experience (his admission) in metal roofing installation and one laborer resulting in unacceptable poor workmanship throughout.
•Zero supervision by the contractor or a Superintendent throughout the duration of the job (contractor's admission),
•The need to involve ASC (metal roofing manufacturer) to corroborate deficient and unacceptable workmanship issues,
•Major delay due to the mutually agreed upon remedial work that had to be done.
•Total lack of communication and coordination by the contractor with Owner/Client
•Claiming completion while ignoring incomplete items and workmanship deficiencies. (Ongoing issue for 3 weeks)
•Refusal to conduct a walkthrough with owner/client to review remaining deficiencies
•Insistence that "job is complete" and issuing "final" billing.
•Deceptive "final" billing that revises and inflates agreed upon values (initialed and agreed by contractor). Also adds new unapproved add services included in original scope.
•A two to three-week basic re-roofing job has now taken three months plus with contractor refusing to remedy deficiencies.
Please note that I, the petitioner filing this complaint, will be out of the country between July 10 through the end of August.
Respectfully ,
Nabil A Haidar, AIA Architect/Owner
Related Case
Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item is verified. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, local building codes and manufactures installation instructions.
Governing Rule: Failure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract.
Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent performed some corrective work on the project. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Thomas was notified that not all of the corrective work had been performed.
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); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8).
Investigator Thomas testified that while some of the issues in the directive had been corrected appropriately, those listed above did not comply with the Registrar’s standards. Investigator Thomas also noted that Respondent’s billing was not in line with the contract and executed change orders.
Complainant testified that the initial contract was for $24,975.00 with approved change orders totaling $555.00 for a total contract price of $25,530.00. Complainant paid $20,000.00 on the contract, leaving a balance of $5,530.00 remaining. Complainant stated that Respondent provided a final invoice showing the change orders totaled $1,600.00, resulting in a balance due of $6,575.00, or $1,045.00 more than the actual change orders.
Mr. Richardson testified that the original contract amount was $24,975.00. Mr. Richardson agreed to “waive the extras”, and accept the $5,530.00 remaining that Complainant acknowledged was owed. Mr. Richardson also questioned the need for the flashing around the fireplace, but agreed to install it because Complainant requested it. Mr. Richardson argued that, because the slope on the front of the house was 22 feet long on each side and the pieces were 10 feet in length, each side would have a short piece of approximately 2 feet. Mr. Richardson was unwilling to acknowledge that, if a 10 foot piece was placed evenly at the apex of the roof with 5 feet on each side of the apex, the “small pieces” on each side would be approximately 7 feet in length.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties agreed to allow Respondent an opportunity to complete the required repairs. Although the deadline for the completion was delayed, Respondent did not complete the corrective work.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 28, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 287054 was first issued on October 9, 2013, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open complaints and one prior resolved/settled complaint against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
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 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 attempted to bill Complainant $1,045.00 more than the agreed contract price including the change orders. 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)(8).
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. 287054 for a period of five days.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
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.
Done this day, March 28, 2023.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Nabil Abou-Haidar
[email redacted]
David Thomas
[email redacted]
Northline Roofing LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff