ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-06760-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-01-02
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Brett Faggioni,
COMPLAINANT
v.
LGCY Installation Services LLC
License No. ROC 335976,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-06760-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 18, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Brett Faggioni appeared on his own behalf via Google Meet. Jaren Parrish appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent LGCY Installation Services LLC. The Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Fagerburg appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Respondent’s Exhibits A-B.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
LGCY Installation Services LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 335976 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about March, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to install a roof stop solar panel system at his home in Cave Creek, Arizona.
On or about June 13, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg. The jobsite inspection was performed on July 23, 2024.
Investigator Fagerburg then issued a Written Directive on or about July 25, 2024, which provided in pertinent part 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 Tuesday August 20, 2024.
...
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Narrative: This is an unacceptable timeline for completion by industry standards. Failed numerous inspections for poor work. They added electrical outlets as part of the project but are saying I added them. They should have included these in the initial permit but are now saying I need to file the permits. They are angry I left the company.
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Compliant Item 4: Multiple failed inspections. They do not know what work completed and saying I need to file permits for work they did.
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a solar panel system installed on the roof of the home along with a blank meter and disconnects installed on the side of the garage. See P (3) and P (5). The complainant explained that the solar panels were installed in March 2023 and there have been at least 4 failed inspections by the City of Phoenix and in April 2024 an inspection by the City of Phoenix requested a small change be made and the solar panels can be energized. The City of Phoenix also determined there was no permit for the 2 EV outlets in the garage. See P (10) and P (11). The respondent stated that the paperwork for the project has not been accurate and now there needs to be a resubmission of the plans for a design change for an additional outlet in the backyard for a hot tub that was not on the original plans. Both parties agree the last time the City of Phoenix performed an inspection was July 11, 2024 showing a plan revision is needed. See P (6) thru P (10). The respondent shall ensure the required revisions to the plans are submitted, a revised permit is issued and all inspections are passed by the City of Phoenix.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Compliant Item 1: Unacceptable timeline for completion. Project signed almost 16 months ago.
Investigator’s Observation: This is a statement made by the complainant that does not imply poor workmanship.
Governing Rule: No Action
Compliant Item 2: I was a former sales contractor for LGCY and when I left they made this process even worse.
Investigator’s Observation: This is a statement made by the complainant that does not imply poor workmanship.
Governing Rule: No Action
Compliant Item 3: They stopped reimbursing my $1000 solar payment despite system being inoperable.
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant explained that because the solar panel system has not been completed and energized the respondent was reimbursing the complainant $1,000.00 for the monthly payments on the loan for the system and stopped the reimbursement 9 months ago. I informed both parties that the ROC does not get involved in financial disputes and the issue may be resolved in a civil venue.
Governing Rule: No Action...
(All errors contained in the original).
On September 19, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about October 4, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about October 16, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on December 18, 2024, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing, Investigator Fagerburg testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.
Investigator Fagerburg testified that while the Directive was extended because the permit had not been issued, ultimately, he did not further extend the permit as Respondent had not submitted the plans to the City of Phoenix.
Finally, Investigator Fagerburg testified that he called Complainant on December 12, 2024 to inquire if any further work had been performed, and Complainant responded in the negative.
Complainant testified that he had contracted for the two EV plugs and a 50 amp disconnect, and per the contract, it was Respondent’s responsibility to obtain the permits for the same.
Complainant testified that due to the significant delays, he no longer will allow Respondent to complete the work.
Mark Cram was Respondent’s Vice President of Licensing and Training. He testified that Respondent attempted at all times to obtain the permits as it was their responsibility for the same.
Finally, Mr. Cram testified that it was Respondent’s intention to go back and fully correct and complete the project, but Complainant has refused the same.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 2, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 335976 was first issued on December 16, 2021, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case, and three “Resolved/Settled Cases”.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent never obtained the permits until well after the Directive expired. Therefore, Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not within workmanship standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as Respondent was not diligent in its efforts to fulfill the contract, and did not obtain the permits and Respondent failed to submit the updated plans to the city of Phoenix.
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to fully 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. 335976 for a period of four days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 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)(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, January 2, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
LGCY Installation Services LLC
[email redacted]
Brett Faggioni
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff