ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-04141-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-12-09
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Maria Ruiz Pacheco,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Saguaro Roofing Plus LLC
License No. ROC 347405,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-04141-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 18, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Maria Ruiz Pacheco appeared on her own behalf. Ray Rabago, Project Manager, appeared on behalf of Respondent Saguaro Roofing Plus LLC.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Saguaro Roofing Plus LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 347405 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about March 6, 2024, Maria Ruiz Pacheco (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, the removal and replacement of a roof.
On or about April 9, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Gregory Johndrow.
On or about July 11, 2024, Investigator Johndrow was planning to perform a jobsite inspection, but Complainant wanted to add new complaint items.
On or about July 29, 2024, Investigator Johndrow conducted a jobsite inspection.
On or about August 13, 2024, Investigator Johndrow 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 Friday, August 30, 2024.
. . . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 2: “Haven’t install solar panels back”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The solar panels have not been reinstalled.
. . . .
Complaint Item 16: “2 weak spots”
(Complainant’s description of soft spots on the roof)
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
One area to the west side of the rooftop HVAC unit was observed.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 1: “Damage to decking found in several areas”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The new roofing system was installed over two areas of damaged roof decking.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 2: “Rotten and soft decking found in several areas of field”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
One area to the west side of the rooftop HVAC unit was observed.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 3: “Damage shingles”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
A torn shingle was observed in the section of singles located to the north of the roof top HVAC unit.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 4: “Crooked shingles in multiples areas”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The horizontal rows of shingles were not installed straight.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 5: “Roof penetrations improperly sealed or jacks not properly installed”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
Multiple roof penetrations are poorly sealed with noticeable voids. Roof jacks were not used in all areas.
The incorrect size roof jack was observed in at least one location.
The shingles cut around the roof penetrations are unsightly do not meet standards.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 6: “Damage shingles at edging”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The shingles along the roof edge are not cut straight and have a jagged edge appearance, this does not follow the manufactures instructions for installation
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 7: “Roof not installed in accordance with specific guidelines”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The manufactures specification of 1⁄4” to 3⁄4” overhang of the shingle on the roof eaves and rakes were not followed in all locations.
The shingle exposure varies throughout the roof from row to row leaving an unsightly appearance.
The horizontal rows of the shingles are not straight.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 8: “Damage plywood at the front and back overhang”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The new roofing system was installed over two areas of damaged roof decking.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 9: “Unsealed pipe jacks and roof vents”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
Multiple roof penetrations are poorly sealed with noticeable voids. Roof jacks were not used in all areas.
The incorrect size roof jack was observed in at least one location.
The shingles cut around the roof penetrations are unsightly do not meet standards.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 10: “Multiple soft areas”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
One area to the west side of the rooftop HVAC unit was observed.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 11: “Failure to use proper materials for decking repairs under the shingles”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
Two sections of roof decking were replaced with dimensionally different thickness of material from the existing roof decking. This was confirmed by a photograph presented to me from the respondent at the time of the inspection. The issue has left a depressed area in the locations where the material was replaced to the east side of the rooftop HVAC unit.
. . . .
Addendum Complaint Item 12: “Water leaks in different areas of the roof, New water leaks, they are located in the boiler room”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
Water is leaking into the closet that houses the water heater and HVAC equipment.
The leak on the front eave outside the front door was not confirmed.
The respondent is to ensure the roof does not leak.
Following the issuance of the written directive, Respondent did not perform any corrective work. On the deadline date, Respondent reached out to Complainant regarding work to be performed.
After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Johndrow was notified no corrective work had been performed.
The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Investigator Johndrow testified as to his observations of the jobsite during the jobsite inspection. Specifically, Investigator Johndrow stated that Respondent was responsible for removing and reinstalling the solar system on the roof after the replacement was complete; however, the solar system was not reinstalled.
Complainant testified that she had no contact from Respondent until the day of the directive deadline.
Mr. Rabago testified that he misunderstood the directive to mean that Respondent had to notify the Registrar of its plan to correct the issues by the deadline in the directive. Mr. Rabago acknowledged Respondent committed the violations in the written directive.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 9, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 347405 was first issued on August 31, 2023, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were 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 did not complete the project in accordance with the plans without Complainant’s consent in a manner that was prejudicial to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded the plans in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).
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 attempt to 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. 347405 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, December 9, 2024.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Maria Ruiz Pacheco
[email redacted]
Gregory Johndrow
[email redacted]
Saguaro Roofing Plus LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff