ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-02528-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-08-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

William G May,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Laydon Leasing Inc

License No. ROC 093833,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-02528-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 24, 2023

APPEARANCES: William May appeared on behalf of himself. Chris Lay appeared on behalf of Respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Del Vecchio

FINDINGS OF FACT

Laydon Leasing Inc. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 093833 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about December 2, 2021, William May (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, construction of a pool and pool deck.

On or about May 26, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Cliff Corlett. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Corlett 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 or before May 5, 2023.

RESTRICTIONS

You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Compliance Item: 2 - Pool coping damaged and incorrectly repaired below industrial standards.

Investigator’s Observation: Cracks at pool control joints may have been acceptable without any repairs, however since the concrete contractor did attempt to make corrections, those corrections must be in a good and workmanlike manner. Pool coping should be reworked to provide a more uniform and professional appearance.

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

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.

All errors in original.

Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent failed to do any corrective work. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Corlett was notified no corrective work had been performed.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Corlett testified consistently with his jobsite inspection notes, written directive, and compliance jobsite inspection notes.

Complainant testified he concurred with Investigator Corlett’s jobsite inspection notes, written directive, and compliance jobsite inspection notes. Complainant testified that prior to filing his complaint with the Registrar of Contractors, he attempted to work with Respondent and Respondent’s subcontractor who poured the pool deck. Complainant testified the day after the pool deck was poured he noticed cracks and poor workmanship in the new deck. Complainant also testified Respondent’s subcontractor was on site for several days after the pool deck was poured. Complainant testified he spoke with Respondent’s subcontractor and was told that the cracking and damage sometimes happens and they regularly use miter cuts to remedy the cracking. Respondent’s subcontractor then made several miter cuts into the pool decking which resulted in further poor workmanship. When Complainant finally saw Mr. Lay, he raised his concerns. Complainant testified Mr. Lay claimed to have never heard about the alleged cracking and workmanship concerns, and never approved his subcontractor to use miter cuts to remedy the cracking.

Mr. Lay testified he was unaware of any discussion between his subcontractor and Complainant regarding the workmanship of the pool deck. Mr. Lay testified that on April 11, 2023, the deck was completed by his subcontractor. On April 19, 2023, Mr. Lay was scheduled to deliver and install the pool equipment; that was when he saw the miter cuts on the pool deck for the first time. Mr. Lay admitted he was not in communication with his subcontractor between April 11, 2023, and April 19, 2023. Mr. Lay testified he does not believe he is responsible for his subcontractor’s admission of poor workmanship with regard to the pool deck. Mr. Lay further testified he does not believe he is responsible for the corrective action taken by his subcontractor to address said poor workmanship.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record as reflected on the Registrar’s public website on August 14, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 093833 was first issued on June 12, 1992, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that are no other open or prior complaints 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 workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The evidence established that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Mr. Lay learned of the damage to Complainant’s pool deck, he was directed to repair the damage by the Registrar of Contractors, and failed to do so. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. 093833 for a period of 7 days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, August 14, 2023.

/s/ Brian Del Vecchio

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Martín Quezada, Director

Registrar of Contractors

William G May

[email redacted]

Laydon Leasing Inc

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff