ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-06587-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-02-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Adam Retherford,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Worldreed Landscaping, Inc.,

DBA: Worldreed

License No. ROC 334058,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-06587-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 29, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Adam Retherford appeared on his own behalf. Robert Reed appeared on behalf of Respondent Worldreed Landscaping, Inc., doing business as Worldreed. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Aaron King appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Worldreed Landscaping, Inc., doing business as Worldreed (“Respondent”), is the holder of License Number 334058 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Robert Reed is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and Manager.

In or about March 2024, Adam Retherford (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to extend the existing paver driveway at Complainant’s home, by installing pavers to widen it.

On or about June 11, 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 Aaron King. After a July 31, 2024 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator King issued a Written Directive to Respondent, dated August 5, 2024, 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 Thursday, August 22nd, 2024.

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Driveway is sunken in several spots

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The pavers installed are wavy and not completed in a professional and workmanlike manner. Some areas of pavers are sunken and settled. The standards state that uneven or wavy pavers are considered unacceptable and that the contractor should make necessary repairs. Additionally, the elevation of two adjacent pavers is not the same. There should be no more than 1/8” difference in height between adjacent pavers. The contractor shall make necessary repairs. Areas in the driveway have sunken in causing there to be a dip over the section of pavers approximately 4’ x 4’. The Complainant identified chipped out damage to the sidewalk done during the work on the pavers by the Respondent. The Respondent will correct all settled areas by the appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 2 - Driveway is not leveled properly (inadequate grading)

Investigator’s Observation: The driveway that existed from the home build, is at a higher elevation than the grading of the side of the home. Due to this, the pavers cascade down to the existing height of the side of the home. The Complainant did not like the work and stated that this was supposed to be different according to the agreement. There was no evidence showing what was agreed upon, and this now has become a contractual issue over what was agreed upon and what was installed. The ROC has no jurisdiction on contractual disputes and as there is not enough evidence to confirm a workmanship issue, then no action is required by the Respondent.

Complaint Item: 3 - Contractor agreed to fix however did not show up and will no longer comunicate

Investigator’s Observation: The ROC has no jurisdiction on this complaint item.

All errors in original.

On November 26, 2024, Investigator King conducted a Jobsite Compliance Inspection. Investigator King’s Compliance Findings indicated that “[t]here was no noticeable change in the pavers. The right side was crooked. The left side was settled with no repairs noticeable. No work was able to have been identified during the inspection. The item is not corrected.”

Thereafter, Investigator King forwarded the Complaint 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).

Investigator King testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes, the Written Directive, and the Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes. Investigator King testified that his observations were indicative of settlement or incorrect preparation work, resulting in a wavy appearance of the pavers that were installed by Respondent. Investigator King explained that the pre-exiting pavers had been installed by the builder of the home and those pavers are “straight,” whereas the pavers installed by Respondent are not straight as seen by looking at the edge. Investigator King referenced the photographs he took at the July 31, 2024 Jobsite Inspection. Investigator King testified that Respondent “had to deal with a negative grade” by the metal box in the driveway, as all the pavers “dip down” and the water flows through the box, and is therefore, not within the Registrar’s standards. The settlement that has occurred is outside the tolerance of the Registrar’s standards. Investigator King further testified that the original driveway is higher than the pathway to the gate that was installed by Respondent.

Investigator King further specified that sunken pavers would not have been caused by vehicle parking, and that if that were the case, Respondent’s warranty should cover the issue.

Investigator King testified that Respondent emailed him after the Compliance Jobsite Inspection asserting that a water leak caused the pavers to sink. Investigator King explained that this could not be ascertained at the time of either of the inspections. There was no indication of any water damage around the water meter box, there was no “soft dirt,” and there were no areas of moisture. Investigator King testified that a licensed contractor should be an expert in their field, and if there was evidence of a water leak, Respondent should not have performed its work until such was remedied.

Mr. Retherford agreed with Investigator King’s testimony. Mr. Retherford testified that he is a licensed plumbing contractor. Mr. Retherford testified that at the time Respondent bid the job, there was some concern that there had been a water main break on his neighbor’s property. Mr. Retherford explained that the water main issue had been corrected by the builder of the homes at the time of construction. A previous drainage issue had been corrected personally by Mr. Retherford, prior to Respondent performing its work. Mr. Retherford testified that he identified a leak, and he capped the PVC pipe and repaired it, and has not experienced any issues since then. Mr. Retherford asserted that if water had been an issue, it would only be in the area of the leak, yet there were issues with the paver installation throughout the entire project. Mr. Retherford further asserted that there have been no issues with the previously existing driveway and that issues with the pavers installed by Respondent exist on the other side of the driveway, away from any alleged leak.

Mr. Reed testified that Respondent extended Mr. Retherford’s driveway, and that it was Mr. Retherford who first brought the issue of a water leak to Respondent’s attention. Mr. Reed testified that Respondent has returned to the jobsite twice in an effort to correct the issue with the pavers, and asserted that Respondent should not be held responsible.

However, Mr. Reed also testified that he “assumed” that Mr. Retherford corrected the water leak. Respondent did not obtain any verification from Mr. Retherford that the water issue had been repaired, prior to Respondent performing its work. Mr. Reed testified that his workers were “focused on laying dirt and then pavers,” and “assumed the leak had been taken care of.” Mr. Reed acknowledged that as of the hearing date, he did not know if the water leak had actually been rectified. Mr. Reed further acknowledged that there was no mention of a potential water issue in the parties’ contract.

Mr. Reed testified that he is not disputing the issues set forth in the Complaint, but rather is disputing Respondent’s responsibility for them.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 4, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 334058 was first issued on July 15, 2021, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline 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. Respondent was aware of a potential water leak and should have ensured, rather than assumed, that the issue had been corrected prior to commencing its work. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and 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. The evidence further established that valid justification did not exist for such failure. 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 Number 334058 for a period of three (3) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 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 11, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

[email redacted]

Adam Retherford

[email redacted]

Worldreed Landscaping, Inc.

DBA: Worldreed

[email redacted]

Aaron King

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff