ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-10073-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-02-09
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Jason Robert Hedlund and
Caitlin Hedlund,
COMPLAINANTS,
v.
Remodel It, LLC
License No. ROC 308620,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2023A-10073-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 6, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainants Jason and Caitlin Hedlund appeared on their own behalf. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Steven Avila appeared as a witness. Respondent Remodel It, LLC failed to appear.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
Remodel It, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 308620 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about May 4, 2022, Jason and Caitlin Hedlund (“Complainants”) contracted with Respondent for the model of their home, including the installation of vinyl flooring.
On or about August 29, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainants alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Steven Avila. After an October 2, 2023 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Avila 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 18, 2023.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item: 1 - Poorly installed flooring - LVP installed not following manufacturer’s instructions. LVP was placed under kitchen cabinetry. Flooring is now warped, buckling and snapping apart at the joints because it does not have room to expand/contract. Contractors were notified before project was completed and instructed homeowner to contact flooring company. Flooring company rejected the claim due to improper installation. Homeowner contract Brigham West again in January of 2023 asking for remediation. After many emails and text messaging, Brigham West of Remodel It LLC. returned to the property in May of 2023 to inspect the floor. He was in agreement that it needed replaced and he was responsible. He measured the square footage and said he would have it completed before July 2023. He has not responded to text or email since that time in May of 2023.
Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there was peaking and cupping throughout the LVP installation. The issues could be seen in the kitchen, dining room, living area and hallway leading to the front entrance. When walking on the LVP near the kitchen island a crunching noise could be heard as the flooring buckled under weight. Some areas of flooring had adjacent LVP pieces that contain lippage that was approximately 1/8 of an inch. Other areas of flooring had chipping and missing sections. Inspection of the flooring near the sliding door to the rear of the residence revealed a lack of proper expansion gap. Areas of flooring throughout the kitchen revealed no expansion gap between the flooring and kitchen cabinetry. Cabinetry appeared to be sitting directly on the LVP flooring planks and therefore restricting the ability to expand and contract. Response from flooring company provided the Registrar by the complainant states that cabinetry should not be installed on flooring and that proper expansion gaps should be installed around all fixtures. Allegation for improperly installed flooring is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.
All errors in original.
After the expiration of the deadline in the Written Directive, Investigator Avila called Complainants and ascertained that Respondent had not performed any corrective work. Consequently, a Compliance Inspection was not conducted.
Thereafter, Investigator Avila 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), 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 December 19, 2023, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing to the parties’ respective mailing and email addresses of record. That Notice advised the parties that the hearing would convene on February 6, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., and that a Google Meet link for participation in the hearing would issue from the Office of Administrative Hearings. On December 20, 2023, the Tribunal issued to the parties’ respective email addresses of record, an Order Setting Hearing Via Google Meet. That Order contained the Google Meet link for participation in the hearing by video or by phone.
On the date and at the time set for hearing, Complainants appeared on their own behalf. Investigator Avila was present. Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued or provide any cause for its absence or delay. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Investigator Avila testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive and his Jobsite Inspection Notes. Investigator Avila referenced several of the photographs he took at the Jobsite Inspection illustrating Respondent’s deficient work, specifically photographs numbered 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9.
Mrs. Hedlund testified that Respondent acknowledged that the deficient work was Respondent’s responsibility, however, did nothing about it. The day after the expiration of the Written Directive, Respondent went to Complainants’ home, took measurements and told Complainants that Respondent would return the following week to perform the work. Respondent failed to do so and would not respond to Complainants inquiries.
Respondent’s Written Answer to the Citation acknowledges responsibility for the defective work in pertinent part as follows:
. . . I wasn't able to take care of it in a timely manner once we determined it to be my responsibility.
. . . .
. . . we did set the island cabinets on the flooring against the manufacturers recommended installation, which unfortunately is contributing to the issue at hand . . .
I agreed to resolve the issue by replacing the affected flooring and including the proper gapping around the island, dining hutch cabs, and sliding glass door.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 9, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 308620 was first issued on September 14, 2016, 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.
Complainants bear 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, Complainants 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 Written Directive being issued and that Respondent did not establish valid justification for such failure. Therefore, Complainants 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 Number 308620 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.
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, February 9, 2024.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Steven Avila
[email redacted]
Jason and Caitlin Hedlund
[email redacted]
Remodel It, LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff