ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-07750-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-12-06

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Victoria Scheer,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Steadfast Electrical Services LLC

License No. ROC 329326,

RESPONDENT,

No. 2023A-07750-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 16, 2023

APPEARANCES: Victoria Scheer appeared on her own behalf. Respondent failed to appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Del Vecchio

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Hearing File and Complainant’s exhibits 1 through 5.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Steadfast Electrical Services LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 329326 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about June 1, 2023, Victoria Scheer (Complainant) entered into a verbal contract with Respondent for, among other things, the installation of an outdoor electrical receptacle for pool equipment with the option to file and manage a permit. The estimated cost for the installation and permit was approximately $1,000.00 to $1,100.00, $500.00 to $600.00 for the receptacle and $500 for the permit. No written contract was drafted or signed by parties.

On or about June 14, 2023, Complainant exercised the option to have Respondent obtain and manage the permit. Complainant paid Respondent $500.00 pursuant to invoice INV0270.

On or about July 6, 2023, Complainant met with Respondent and discussed a change order regarding the location of the receptacle. As a result, the estimate increased to $850.00 for materials and labor.

On or about July 8, 2023, Respondent installed a single 20-amp GFCI outlet and breaker and sent invoice INV281 with an amount of $870.00 due. Complainant paid Respondent $870.00.

On or about July 11, 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 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 August 22, 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 reasons, 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 license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Compliance Item: 1 - Work was not completed to code; Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. There are several code violations concerning the work contracted by the respondent. Per the local building authority, the outlets at the equipment location should be tamper and water resistant, the conduit should be buried deep enough to satisfy local building code requirements (18 inches), the GFI should be at the panel as apposed to the equipment end of the circuit. Contractor should repair by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.

Compliance Item: 2 - Work was not completed as agreed upon;

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. An original text (contract) indicates an agreement to run two separate 15 amp circuits. The respondent ran one 20 amp circuit and added an outlet. There should be two individual 15 amp circuits as agreed upon in the text contract.

Contractor should repair 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: 4 - There is no permit from the electrical contractor.

Investigator’s Observation: Confirmed. The contractor did not pull an electrical permit as described in an invoice to the complainant. There should be a building permit if one was contracted and paid for.

Contractor should supply building permit and have it signed as completed by the local building authority.

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 acknowledge the written directive until the day before the deadline, August 21, 2023. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Wiskow 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 (B); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158.

Respondent failed to appear at the hearing. The tribunal waited 15 minutes beyond the scheduled start time, but no one appeared for Respondent. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s address and email address of record. An October 3, 2023, order from the Administrative Law Judge was sent to the parties via email and included the information necessary to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. At hearing, there were no phone calls or emails from Respondent regarding their inability to appear and there were no return mail receipts in the file.

Investigator Wiskow testified that on August 21, 2023, Richard Villwock, owner of Respondent, left a voicemail with the investigator. Mr. Villwock stated he was calling to comply with the written directive. Investigator Wiskow testified he attempted to call Mr. Villwock twice and left a voicemail informing him the deadline required all repairs be completed by August 22, 2023. After the deadline passed, Investigator Wiskow spoke with Complainant who informed him no repairs had been attempted.

Complainant testified the parties agreed verbally on June 1, 2023, Respondent was to install two GFCI 15-amp circuits for her pool equipment. Complainant had a permit for the installation of the pool and mistakenly believed a separate permit was required for the power outlet. Complainant requested via text message that Mr. Villwock obtain what she believed to be the necessary permit for the installation of the outlet. Mr. Villwock told her there was a $500 fee plus the cost of the permit for him to manage and obtain said permit. Complainant agreed on June 14, 2023, and paid Respondent $500.00 pursuant to invoice INV0270. At no point was a permit obtained by Respondent. Also, on June 14, 2023, Complainant informed Respondent that COX Communications (COX) planned to bury overhead lines in the vicinity of Respondent’s jobsite. COX then dug trenches at a depth of 12 inches, completed its work, and left the trench open for inspection. On July 8, 2023, Respondent installed a single 20-amp GFCI circuit and laid its conduit into the trench dug by COX. Complainant showed Mr. Villwock the original text message agreement was for two 15-amp GFCI circuits. Mr. Villwock stated a single 20-amp GFCI circuit would be sufficient, but if not, he would return to install the two 15-amp GFCI circuits free of charge. Mr. Villwock also told Complainant invoice INV0281 also included the cost of the permit even though the description only indicated the installation of a single 20-amp GFCI circuit. Complainant agreed and paid Respondent $870.00 pursuant to invoice INV0281. On July 10, 2023, Respondent’s electrical work failed inspection because the conduit was not installed at the minimum 18 inch depth as required by city building codes. Complainant reached out to Mr. Villwock and asked him to complete the job in compliance with city codes and to run the two 15-amp outlets and breakers per their original agreement. Mr. Villwock told Complainant she was responsible for digging the trench, but if she wanted him to do the trench work without charging for said work he would return in about a month.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s License record on December 1, 2023. Respondent’s License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 329326 was first issued on June 16, 2020, and is active. Respondent’s License record also reflects that there were no other open or resolved/settled cases and one prior disciplinary action against Respondent’s license; the prior disciplinary action was closed on May 30, 2023.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record were reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.

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. Per the local building authority, conduit must be buried at a depth of 18 inches; however, the conduit was buried at a depth of 12 inches. Furthermore, the verbal contract required two 15-amp GFCI circuits and only one 20-amp GFCI circuit was installed. 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 obtain the necessary permits to perform work under the contract until after the written directive deadline. Complainant paid Respondent to obtain and manage a permit, however, no permit was obtained. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to obtain the necessary permits in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(B).

The evidence established that Respondent’s contract failed to include the required elements of a contract set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). Here, Complainant evidenced the contract exceeded the $1,000.00 minimum. The June 1, 2023, verbal contract was for an approximate $1,000.00 to $1,100.00 in materials and services. The final invoices under the verbal contract totaled $1,370.00. Because the contract was verbal, none of the required elements were present. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A).

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. 329326 for a period of 5 days.

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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, December 6, 2023.

/s/ Brian Del Vecchio

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Steadfast Electrical Services LLC

[email redacted]

Victoria Scheer

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff