ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-10152-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-01-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Melissa Elaine Hoyt,

COMPLAINANT

v.

A To Z Flooring Experts LLC

License No. ROC 325582,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-10152-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 8, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Melissa Elaine Hoyt appeared on her own behalf via Google Meet. Gabriel Badiu appeared on behalf of Respondent A To Z Flooring Experts LLC via Google Meet. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Daniel Edwards appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

A To Z Flooring Experts LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 325582 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about May 3, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to install an outdoor kitchen island at her home in Phoenix, Arizona.

On or about September 6, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Daniel Edwards. The jobsite inspection was performed on September 19, 2024.

Investigator Edwards then issued a Written Directive on or about September 24, 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 Friday, October 11, 2024.

...

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Cracked grout in various areas causing tiles to loosen/fall off

Investigator’s Observation: Substantiated. Grout is cracking at the grout joints between the field of tiles and the bullnose edge tiles. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 2 - Bullnose tiles are falling off around perimeter of the BBQ island Investigator’s Observation: Substantiated. Multiple bullnose tiles around all sides of the countertop have delaminated and have fallen off of the countertop edges as of the date of inspection. Tiles are delaminating without mortar attached to the backs of the tiles, suggesting a lack of proper bonding to the tile mortar. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Workmanship

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 3 - Bullnose tiles along SE island edge are not fully mounted to backer

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation is a duplicate of issues addressed in complaint item no.2.

Governing Rule: Not Applicable

Complaint Item: 4 - Random falling tiles have posed a deadly risk to my 10-lb dog since 05/04/2023

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation is a duplicate of issues addressed in complaint item no.2.

Governing Rule: Not Applicable

Complaint Item: 5 - Allowed an unlicensed contractor to correct all deficiencies found in the first complaint with the ROC. Proof that this

Investigator’s Observation: There is currently insufficient evidence to substantiate a violation related to this allegation. A copy of the Registrar's Substantiate Policy Statement 102: Independent Contractors and Employees is being attached to this directive for informational purposes and clarification regarding workers authorized to address directive items (i.e. employees of respondent and/or appropriately licensed subcontractors within respondent's own license classification).

Governing Rule: Not Applicable ...

(All errors contained in the original).

On October 16, 2024, Investigator Edwards completed a Compliance Jobsite Inspection in which he noted the following, in pertinent part:

Complaint Item: 1 - Cracked grout in various areas causing tiles to loosen/fall off

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Substantiated. Grout is cracking at the grout joints between the field of tiles and the bullnose edge tiles. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: At compliance inspection, it was observed that respondent has attempted to re-grout the cracked grout joints throughout the installation, however, some cracked grout cracking still remains in multiple areas. Additionally, multiple grout joints were observed that appeared to have grout scraped out of the joints and replacement grout was not installed flush with the tile surfaces. Grout is smeared on the surface of bullnose tiles as well. Work does not appear to meet minimum standards.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4- 9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 2 - Bullnose tiles are falling off around perimeter of the BBQ island

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Substantiated. Multiple bullnose tiles around all sides of the countertop have delaminated and have fallen off of the countertop edges as of the date of inspection. Tiles are delaminating without mortar attached to the backs of the tiles, suggesting a lack of proper bonding to the tile mortar. Respondent shall correct by appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Bullnose tiles have been reinstalled, however, new issues are present. Multiple tiles reinstalled during the course of repairs now exhibit lippage outside of the allowable tolerance of 1/32”, installed crooked and out of plane, a chipped tile was observed, and new grout joint sizes are not uniform (grout joints are 1/18” throughout the installation; new joints are 1/16” or less in some areas). Bullnose tiles themselves are consistent in their dimensions and this appears to be caused by the installer. Ultimately these issues are minor cosmetic concerns, however, work nonetheless does not appear to meet minimum standards.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED...

On October 28, 2024, 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).

On or about November 11, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about November 26, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on January 8, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Edwards testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Edwards testified that while some corrective work had been performed it created new issues such as improper lippage and cracked grout joints.

Complainant offered no additional testimony to support her position.

Mr. Badiu testified that that there were issues with the work performed and wanted to reach a settlement with Complainant.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 23, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 325582 was first issued on July 25, 2019, and reflected that there was one open case, namely the present case, and one “Resolved/Settled” case.

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, and Mr. Badiu did not disagree, 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 the grout was cracking at the grout joints and bullnose tiles were falling off.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established, and Mr. Badiu did not disagree, that 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. 325582 for a period of two 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 23, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

A To Z Flooring Experts LLC

[email redacted]

Melissa Elaine Hoyt

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff