ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-07798-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-03-02
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Wesley Sanders,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Nationwide Sunrooms and Contracting LLC
License No. ROC 316020,
RESPONDENT
No. 2022A-07798-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 10, 2023
APPEARANCES: Complainant Wesley Sanders appeared on his own behalf. Richard Craven, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Nationwide Sunrooms and Contracting LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Nationwide Sunrooms and Contracting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 316020 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about December 16, 2021, Wesley Sanders (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for the construction of two solid patio covers.
On or about September 9, 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 Michael Wiskow. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Wiskow 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 November 15, 2022.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: 2 - 2. Our gutter systems slope the wrong direction and
leak
Investigator’s Observation: The gutters at the back roof slope in a negative direction. (Photo 11). Water was run onto the roof at the jobsite. It pooled on the opposite side that the drain is on. The gutters also leak. The gutters should have a positive drain towards the downspouts and not leak.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 3 - 3. Both patio roofs leak
Investigator’s Observation: There is evidence in some staining and photos that the roofs leak. (Photos 3, 6, 10, 12 and 13). There is not sufficient flashing at either roof. The roof systems should not leak and should be flashed properly.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 4 - 4. 1st patio gable ends stick out past roof panels and should be under roof panels
Investigator’s Observation: The decorative ends of the beam at the side roof stick out past the structure. (Photos 4 and 5). The company website shows that the decorative ends should be under the roof structure. Furthermore, the decorative ends are hollow on the top so the collect water and drain into the support posts. The decorative ends should be under the roof structure.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means. Contractor should also repair facia that was cut to install decorative ends by appropriate means.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 5 - 5. Breezeway patio does not have enough pitch to adequately shed water from the roof (only 1 inch of drop over 12 feet span).
Investigator’s Observation: The back patio cover doesn't have an adequate pitch to it. (Photos 12 and 14). When water was run onto the roof, a large pool formed in the middle of the roof and didn't drain. The roof shows characteristics of a flat roof. Water should run off the roof with an adequate pitch.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
. . . .
Compliance Item: 7 - Holes in facia as a result of gutter installation on the back structure.
Investigator’s Observation: There are holes in facia as a result of gutter installation on the back structure. (Photo 15). There shouldn't be any damage visible as the result of this modification.
Contractor should repair by appropriate means.
Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent performed some corrective work. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Wiskow was notified the corrective work had not been completed.
During a compliance inspection, Investigator Wiskow noted that Respondent appropriately corrected Compliance Item 4 noted in the written directive. All other compliance items in the written directive were not properly corrected.
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)(22).
Investigator Wiskow testified that his observations of the patio covers indicated the construction was not within the Registrar’s standards. Investigator Wiskow admitted that he did not put a level on the structures, but he observed standing water in the gutter system was higher on one end than the other, which established the structure was not level. Investigator Wiskow also noted that a pool of water collected on top of the structure during the water test and did not run off as expected.
Complainant testified that both patio covered sloped in the wrong direction. Complainant stated that the gutters filled up on one side before reaching the drain on the other side. Complainant noted that the gutters filled up with water up to 3/4 inch deep before reaching the drain.
Mr. Craven testified that the structures were intended to have flat roofs and would not drain the way that Investigator Wiskow expected. Mr. Craven also noted that Respondent provided a 20 year warranty on the structures, so any issues could be addressed. Mr. Craven stated that after the written directive was issued, he took a level to the structures and determined that they were constructed properly. Mr. Craven denied the accounts of the water filling the gutters as evidence that the roofs were sloped incorrectly.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 2, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 316020 was first issued on October 3, 2017, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were three open complaints and no prior complaints 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 did not complete the corrective work following the 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. 316020 for a period of three 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 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)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
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 2, 2023.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted electronically to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Mike Wiskow
[email redacted]
Nationwide Sunrooms and Contracting LLC
[email redacted]
Wesley Sanders
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff