ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-10820-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-04-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Alastair Stansfield,

COMPLAINANT

DFI & ASSOC. LLC

License No. ROC 329058,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-10820-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 28, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Alastair Stansfield appeared via Google Meet. Registrar of Contractors Investigator John Smith appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-8.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

DFI & Assoc. LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 329058 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about May 10, 2022, and on July 21, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to perform remodel his kitchen at his home in Tucson, Arizona.

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 John Smith. The jobsite inspection was performed on November 5, 2024.

Investigator Smith then issued a Written Directive on or about November 12, 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 December 10, 2024.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 3: “Kitchen ceiling still leaks when there is heavy rain. Contractor came back July 2023 to fix it, we paid out of pocket”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The respondent’s Invoice 21-1131, Dated 7/21/2023, includes:

Scope of work:

• Repair water damage, source being the Master Sliding glass door upstairs. Cause, door installed incorrectly. Door application should be one oftwo things. Retro fit slider or a nail-on application.

Installer took a nail-on door and removed the exterior fin for an easier installation. But in doing so, removed the fin which is used to seal the door.

Also, was not "Flashed" properly at the threshold, which also repels water from entering residence. When water hits the window, water just goes straight through to ground floor.

• To Repair damaged areas, Need to remove the existing 6' slider.

Remove the stucco 4"-6" around the door. Remove the existing flashing around the door. Flash at the bottom.

Re-install existing door with new flashing. Level the door. (wasn't done before), provide proper weather proofing around the door and threshold. Patch stucco around door and paint to match.

• Interior, Need to repair the drywall from the water damage and texture and paint to match.

Conditions observed during this inspection:

• There is moisture damage to the drywall in the kitchen area.

As confirmed by the respondent, the respondent’s work included:

• Re-sealing the roof above the kitchen

• Removing and re-installing the master bedroom patio door, which is above the kitchen.

As confirmed by the respondent during this inspection:

• The leak occurred after completion of the respondent’s work

• The respondent re-installed the patio door in the same manner previously identified as “installed incorrectly”.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item 4: “Flooring- pockets underneath causing dips and gaps”

Investigator’s Observations: Verified.

The flooring installed is a floating laminate flooring.

Conditions observed during this inspection:

• There are areas of damaged flooring as a result of incorrect installation.

• The floor in the dining area is out of level approximately 5/16 inch in a 6 foot span.

• The floor in the dining area is not flat, approximately 5/16 inch high in the center of a 12 foot span.

• There is at least on location in the dining area with a bulge from under the floor, causing damage to the flooring.

• Flooring at the exterior door does not have the required expansion space.

As stated in the Arizona Workmanship Standards:

• Possible Defect: Uneven or wavy floors.

o Acceptable Tolerance: Floors should not vary from flat more than 1/4 inch over a 10 foot area, provided the deviation is gradual. Deviations dips, or sags over short distances and easily visible to the eye may be considered unacceptable.

o Contractor Responsibility: Contractor should make necessary repairs.

• Possible Defect: Floors not level.

o Acceptable Tolerance: Floors should be level within 1/4 inch in any 12 foot run.

o Contractor Responsibility: Contractor should make necessary repairs.

• Flooring should be installed in according to manufacturer’s recommendations.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS

In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the following violations were verified:

Elements of a Contract

Investigator’s Observations:

The respondent’s contract, dated 5/10/2022, is missing the following information:

• An estimated date of completion

• A signature of the property owner

The respondent’s contract, dated 7/21/2023 is missing the following information:

• An estimated date of completion

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) Minimum Elements of a Contract.

Any contract in an amount of more than one thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property to be improved shall contain in writing at least the following information:

1: The name of the contractor and the contractor's business address and license number.

2: The name and mailing address of the owner and the jobsite address or legal description.

3: The date the parties entered into the contract.

4: The estimated date of completion of all work to be performed under the contract.

5: A description of the work to be performed under the contract.

6: The total dollar amount to be paid to the contractor by the owner for all work to be performed under the contract, including all applicable taxes.

7: The dollar amount of any advance deposit paid or scheduled to be paid to the contractor by the owner.

8: The dollar amount of any progress payment and the stage of construction at which the contractor will be entitled to collect progress payments during the course of construction under the contract.

9a: That the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the registrar for an alleged violation of section 32-1154, subsection A.

9b: The contract shall contain the registrar’s telephone number and website address and shall state that complaints must be made within the applicable time period as set forth in section 32- 1162, subsection A.

9c: The information in this paragraph must be prominently displayed in the contract in at least ten- point bold type...

9d: ...and the contract shall be signed by the property owner and the contractor or the contractor’s designated representative.

This paragraph does not apply to a person who is subject to and complies with section 12-1365.

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to submit a contract form (for use on future projects) that complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158...

(All errors contained in the original).

The Written Directive was then amended by agreement of the parties to have a completion date of December 18, 2024.

Compliance Jobsite Inspection was completed on January 13, 2025. Investigator Smith noted the following:

. . .

Present for the Complainant: Alastair Stansfield

Present for the Respondent: The respondent was not present.

Number of days from issuance of the Directive to this Compliance Inspection: 62

• 11/12/24: Initial Directive, specifying a due date of 12/10/24

• 12/10/24: Amended Directive, specifying a due date of 12/18/24

Compliance Findings: The respondent has not taken appropriate corrective action to comply with the Directive.

Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22): Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter...

Compliance Jobsite Inspection General Notes:

This Compliance Inspection was to evaluate the current conditions of item(s) requiring corrective action as stated on the Directive. Those item(s) are listed below.

Complaint Item 3: “Kitchen ceiling still leaks when there is heavy rain. Contractor came back July 2023 to fix it, we paid out of pocket”

Investigator’s Observations from the initial inspection: Verified.

• There is moisture damage to the drywall in the kitchen area.

As confirmed by the respondent during this inspection:

• The leak occurred after completion of the respondent’s work

• The respondent re-installed the patio door in the same manner previously identified as “installed incorrectly”.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item:

This has not been corrected.

Some work has been performed; however, the current conditions do not meet ROC Workmanship Standards.

• Drywall has been repaired; however, the paint does not adequately cover the surface. There are areas of the base color showing through the finish color.

• During the initial jobsite inspection, the respondent acknowledged the patio door was “installed incorrectly”.

o No corrective work has been performed to correct this.

o No effort has been made to identify the source of the water intrusion.

o No effort has been made to eliminate the water intrusion.

Complaint Item 4: “Flooring- pockets underneath causing dips and gaps”

Investigator’s Observations from the initial inspection: Verified.

The flooring installed is a floating laminate flooring.

Conditions observed during this inspection:

• There are areas of damaged flooring as a result of incorrect installation.

• The floor in the dining area is out of level approximately 5/16 inch in a 6 foot span.

• The floor in the dining area is not flat, approximately 5/16 inch high in the center of a 12 foot span.

• There is at least on location in the dining area with a bulge from under the floor, causing damage to the flooring.

• Flooring at the exterior door does not have the required expansion space.

As stated in the Arizona Workmanship Standards:

• Possible Defect: Uneven or wavy floors.

o Contractor Responsibility: Contractor should make necessary repairs.

• Possible Defect: Floors not level.

o Acceptable Tolerance: Floors should be level within 1/4 inch in any 12 foot run.

o Contractor Responsibility: Contractor should make necessary repairs.

• Flooring should be installed in according to manufacturer’s recommendations.

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item:

This has not been corrected.

Some work has been performed; however, the current conditions do not meet ROC Workmanship Standards.

• The damaged flooring is still present.

• The floor in the dining area is out of level approximately 5/16 inch in a 6 foot span.

• The floor in the dining area is not flat, approximately 5/16 inch high in the center of a 12 foot span.

• There is at least on location in the dining area with a bulge from under the floor, causing damage to the flooring.

• Flooring at the exterior door does not have the required expansion space.

• Flooring at the doorway from the dining room to the office:

o Separating seams with uneven deflection

o Lippage due to improper connections of flooring

Elements of a Contract

Investigator’s Observations:

The respondent’s contract, dated 5/10/2022, is missing the following information:

• An estimated date of completion

• A signature of the property owner

The respondent’s contract, dated 7/21/2023 is missing the following information:

• An estimated date of completion

REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: The respondent is to submit a contract form (for use on future projects) that complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158

Compliance Inspection Findings for this item:

This has not been corrected.

No effort has been made to resolve or correct this...

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); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about January 31, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about February 25, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on February 27, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. A copy of the Notice of Hearing was mailed and e-mailed to Respondent’s addresses of record. The tribunal also issued an Order containing the Google Meet information via e-mail to the parties on February 27, 2025.

Although the start of the hearing was delayed approximately 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Further, Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

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

Investigator Smith testified that Respondent failed to appear at the compliance jobsite investigation.

Further, Investigator Smith testified that Respondent had e-mailed him requesting an extension of the Directive to December 18, 2024, as he had not commenced any of the corrective work. Investigator Smith testified that despite this, Complainant agreed to the additional time. However, Investigator Smith testified that Respondent did not commence any work until December 18, 2024 and only worked until December 20, 2024.

As to the contract issues, Investigator Smith testified that in the parties’ first contract, there was no estimated date of completion, nor Complainant’s signature. Further, in the second contract, the estimated date of completion was likewise missing.

Finally, Investigator Smith testified that he reviewed Respondent’s answer and the statements made in the answer contradicted what Respondent stated at the initial jobsite inspection.

Complainant testimony echoed Investigator Smith as to the status of the project. Complainant also testified that this project was extremely inconvenient for him and his family of 6 as they had to wash dishes from his bathtub for example.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 11, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 329058 was first issued on May 27, 2020, and reflected that there was one open case, 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 there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as the work performed was not completed in a workmanlike manner.

The preponderance of the evidence established that the contracts were in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely A.R.S. § 32-1158, as it did not contain the estimated date of completion, and the first contract did not contain Complainant’s signature.

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent failed to 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. 329058 for a period of three 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 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.

It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered to provide the Registrar with a sample contract which complies with A.R.S. § 32-1158. It is recommended that Respondent’s license remain suspended until it complies with the same.

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 11, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Alastair Stansfield

[email redacted]

DFI & ASSOC. LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff