ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-08198-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-12-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ranjeet Singh,

COMPLAINANT,

Daniel Mark Henderson

Daniel M Henderson

License Nos. ROC 191093 & 165089,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-08198-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 25, 2024

APPEARANCES: Complainant Ranjeet Singh appeared on his own behalf. Daniel Mark Henderson appeared on behalf of Respondent Daniel Mark Henderson, doing business as Daniel M. Henderson. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Robert Di Alto appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None

FINDINGS OF FACT

Daniel Mark Henderson, doing business as Daniel M. Henderson (“Respondent”), is the holder of License Numbers 191093 and 165089 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about February 10, 2024, Ranjeet Singh (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to perform front and backyard landscaping, to install pavers, remove and install a concrete driveway, and install a block wall with wrought iron, among other contract items. The contract price was $71,232.80. On May 1, 2024, the parties executed an additional contract expanding the scope of work and changing a term of the original contract. This contract price was $4,591.36. Complainant has paid Respondent over $60,000.00.

On or about July 21, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment of the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Robert Di Alto. Investigator Di Alto conducted a Jobsite Inspection on August 19, 2024. Following the Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Di Alto issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated August 19, 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 09/09/2024.

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

Complaint Item: 1- Front concrete driveway not done--has taken money since Feb 2024

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The complaint item has not been started as described in the signed proposal dated 02/04/2024. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions.

Complaint Item: 2- East side concrete driveway started and but not done—has taken advance

Complaint Item: 3- West side walkway travertine not installed -, has taken money in advance

Complaint Item: 4- Rear Deck travertine installation not started, has taken money in advance

Complaint Item: 5- Three 36 inch tall block wall sections with pilaster for

wrought iron gates 275 linea feet. Not started

Complaint Item: 6- Pre grade front and back for concrete driveways, pavers, and G and D inspection.-unfinished

All errors in original.

After the September 9, 2024 deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Investigator Di Alto ascertained that Respondent had not complied with the Written Directive. Thereafter, Investigator Di Alto 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)(1), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

The matter was set for hearing on November 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Daniel Henderson appeared on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Di Alto appeared as a witness.

Investigator Di Alto testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes and the Written Directive. Investigator Di Alto testified that he issued two Warning Letters to Respondent concerning contracting beyond the scope of licensure and failing to comply with the statutorily required minimum elements of a contract. However, Respondent was not charged with either of those alleged violations.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Di Alto’s testimony, and reiterated that Respondent failed to complete the project and abandoned it, notwithstanding having been paid the majority of the contract price. Complainant also expressed frustration that Respondent ceased communications with him.

Mr. Henderson testified that this was a “difficult project to manage” and as the project progressed, Complainant added to the scope of work. Mr. Henderson acknowledged that his concrete subcontractor “paved incorrectly.” Mr. Henderson asserted that he saved Complainant money by using his contractor’s account to purchase the tile for the patio, as well as stone for the project. Mr. Henderson attributed the delays on the project to two deaths in his immediate family and that of a close friend, as well as a personal medical emergency that required his hospitalization and rendered him unable to work for six weeks. Mr. Henderson testified that because of his inability to work, Respondent was not able to retain crews, the work “snowballed,” and Respondent fell behind, at which point, the relationship with Complainant “fell apart.” Mr. Henderson testified that he is currently retired and the “business is shut down.”

Mr. Henderson did not provide dates or the timeframe within which these unfortunate events occurred, and the vast majority of the work was contracted for in February 2024. The Complaint was not filed until July 21, 2024, providing ample time for the scope of work to be performed.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 9, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 191093 was first issued on December 8, 2003, and is suspended. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and one complaint resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

Such prior License record further reflects that Respondent’s License Number 165089 was first issued on May 14, 2001, and is suspended. Such prior License record also reflects that there are no open complaints (however this matter is an open complaint not reflected on the website), two (2) 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 abandoned the contract or refused to perform, without legal excuse, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The evidence established that Respondent failed to complete the work it contracted to perform. 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 failed to complete the work it contracted to perform for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued and acknowledged such. Further, Respondent failed to establish valid justification 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 Numbers 191093 and 165089 for a period of ten (10) 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, December 10, 2024.

/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]

Robert Di Alto

[email redacted]

Daniel Mark Henderson

DBA: Daniel M Henderson

[email redacted]

Ranjeet Singh

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff