ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-10816-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Thomas John Cullen,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Advantage Pool and Spa Plumbing Inc.

License No. ROC 351621,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-10816-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 17, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Thomas Jon Cullen was represented by Lawrence Felder who appeared via Google Meet. Respondent Advantage Pool and Spa Plumbing Inc. was represented by William Richardson who appeared via Google Meet. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Cliff Corlett appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-2 and Respondent’s Exhibits 1-9 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Advantage Pool and Spa Plumbing Inc. (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 351621 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about July 17, 2024, Complainant hired Respondent to prepare forms, plumbing, electrical rough and rebar at his home in Lake Havasu, Arizona. There was no formal written contract, just sketches with drawings and line item costs.

On or about September 23, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Cliff Corlett. The jobsite inspection was performed on November 15, 2024.

Investigator Corlett then issued a Written Directive on or about November 21, 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 or before December 13, 2024.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 4 - Electrical Conduit is the wrong size for the junction box, Too many bends, Not Glued, Not Buried and terminates in the wrong location.

Investigator’s Observation:

There were no plans, specifications and or a contract provided with this complaint to be able to determine the Respondents scope of work.

This is a work in progress. Most items alleged in this case would normally be addressed during the continuing construction process.

Electrical conduits are permitted to have no more than 360 degrees of bends between pull points. Conduits should be properly glued. Conduit should be properly buried beneath the concrete deck. There is no documentation stating Respondent was to establish a "finish grade" on which to pour the concrete deck.

RESPONDENT SHOULD PROPERLY GLUE CONDUIT AND INSURE NO

MORE THAN 360 DEGREES OF BENDS.

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: 6 - The Stairs are inconsistent and dangerous. The

Rise varies from 13” to 7”. One is 3” and is a trip hazard.

Investigator’s Observation: Stair height vary between 8-inches, 13-inches

and 12-inches.

The International Swimming Pool and Spa Code section 411 specifies pool/ spa stair requirements.

SECTION 411:

SPECIAL FEATUTERS

411.2.1 Tread dimensions and area:

Treads shall not be more than 24-inches at the leading edge. Treads shall have an unobstructed horizontal depth of not less than 10-inches at the centerline.

411.2.2 RISERS:

Risers, except for the bottom riser, shall have a uniform height of not greater

than 12-inches measured at the centerline. The bottom riser is allowed to vary to the floor.

411.2.3 TOP TREAD:

The vertical distance from the pool coping, deck, or step surface to the upper most tread shall be not greater that 12-inches

RESPONDENTS STAIRS DO NOT COMPLY WITH CODE REQUIRED UNIFORMITY.

RESPONDENT SHOULD CORRECT BY APPROPRIATE METHODS.

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...

(All errors contained in the original).

While Investigator Corlett did not conduct a Compliance Jobsite Inspection, on January 14, 2025, he sent the following correspondence to the parties, which read in pertinent part:

Compliance Jobsite General Notes: On 1-14-25 Mr. Cullen (Complainant) sent email stateing the Respondnet has not corrected any items from the Registrars 11-2-1-24 Written Directive

Compliance Findings: Respondent is not in compliance. . .

(All errors contained in the original).

On January 17, 2025, 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 January 24, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about February 5, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on March 6, 2025, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

After a continuance, the hearing was held on March 17, 2025.

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

Investigator Corlett testified that while there was no written contract, there was no dispute that Respondent was hired to perform work on the project.

Further, Investigator Corlett testified that while the jobsite was a “work in progress”, the electrical conduit was not properly addressed even for the state of the project.

As to the height of the steps, Investigator Corlett testified that Respondent was responsible for the installation of the rebar, and while he could not tell if the rebar was installed at the correct height, it was clear that the steps were not to code.

Complainant testified that he did the drawings three times for Respondent, and while he paid for the shotcrete contractor, it was Complainant’s understanding that Mr. Scheller was to instruct and guide the application of the shotcrete to conform with the plans.

Robert Scheller testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Scheller testified that he was not finished working on the conduit, and that he never “touched” the stairs.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 1, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 351621 was first issued on April 16, 2024, and reflected that there was one open cases, namely the present 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 that the electrical conduit had more than 360 degrees of bends, was not glued, and was not buried. Further, the stairs were at the incorrect height and not up to code. Therefore, Complainant established a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to fully complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. In Mr. Scheller’s Answer, he admitted that he “overlooked” the Directive items, and did not make the appropriate corrections. 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. 351621 for a period of one day.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $50.00 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, April 1, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Lawrence J. Felder, Esq.

[email redacted]

William R. Richardson, Esq.

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff