ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-01110-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-06-13
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Francis Farrell,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
AP Fiberglass Pools & Consulting LLC
License No. ROC 323411,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-01110-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: Convened and concluded on May 24, 2024.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Francis Farrell and Luz Farrell.
For Respondent: No appearance.
For the Registrar of Contractors: No appearance.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
Administrative notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
Complainant’s Exhibit 1.
FINDINGS OF FACT
AP Fiberglass Pools & Consulting LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 323411 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about June 25, 2020, Francis Farrell (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, installation of a fiberglass pool.
On or about January 28, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming the Respondent abandoned the project and failed to follow code.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Jack Grimm, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on February 1, 2024, scheduling the inspection for February 15, 2024.
Investigator Grimm conducted the jobsite inspection on February 15, 2024. Following the inspection, Investigator Grimm issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on February 15, 2024 that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliance Item #1: They are refusing to be present or even acknowledging the final inspection notes to show proof of the discrepancy’s that need addressed in order to finalize the permit.
Builder doesn’t have plans on site for both permits pool 60 Amp circuit.
Wiring inside pool control panel does not conform to NEC code.
Need proof that pool detail calls for #8 copper and wire rebar.
Close open KO w/seal and strain relief for light cords.
Pool heater bonded.
Transformer used for low volt light shall be listed and identified for swimming pool and spa. (Provide manufacturers specs for light use)
Investigator’s Observation: Property owner provided City of Peoria correction notice.
Pool and components were installed by the respondent and final city approval did not take place.
*Correct items as outlined in the building department correction notice and/or any others and obtain final inspection and approvals from code jurisdiction governing authority.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Grimm of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on March 4, 2024.
On March 11, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on March 26, 2024.
On April 9, 2024, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case. The Registrar mailed the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record. During the investigation, Investigator Grimm achieved communication with Respondent using the same address and email address.
An April 9, 2024 order from the Office of Administrative Hearings advised the parties of how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet.
The hearing was held in person and via Google Meet on May 24, 2024.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start was delayed, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license. Respondent’s Answer simply denied the claims without any evidence.
Investigator Grimm did not appear. Consequently, the Registrar of Contractors did not provide testimony in this matter.
Complainant testified that he entered a contract with Respondent to install a fiberglass pool. Afterwards, the City of Peoria inspected the pool and informed Complainant that Respondent had failed to file necessary paperwork and that elements of the work were incorrect. Respondent never attempted to correct the work.
Complainant provided documents from the City of Peoria, including the following: (1) Development and Engineering Department, Building Development Division, Consultation; (2) City Code Advisory; (3) Final Notice City Code Advisory; and (4) Correction Notice.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 5, 2024. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 323411 was first issued on January 31, 2021; it was revoked on May 20, 2024; and there were sixteen open complaints, five resolved/settled complaints, and two prior complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent is deemed to have received the Notice of the Hearing and the Order Setting Hearing via Google Meet by methods reasonably calculated to effect notice. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing on Contested Case to its address and email address of record.
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of his right to prosecute his complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
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 submitted a bid for Complainant’s project and failed to complete the work appropriately. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent abandoned the project in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).
The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the project in accordance with the applicable building code in a manner that was prejudicial to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded applicable building code in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 323411.
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).
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, June 13, 2024.
/s/ Samuel Fox
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]
Jack Grimm
[email redacted]
Francis Farrell
[email redacted]
AP Fiberglass Pools & Consulting LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff