ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2024A-10820-RFA-LS-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-08

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Alastair Stansfield,

COMPLAINANT,

DFI & ASSOC. LLC

License No. ROC 329058,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-10820-RFA-LS-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 19, 2025 at 9:00am

APPEARANCES: Complainant Alastair Stansfield appeared on his own behalf. Thomas Dailey appeared on behalf of Respondent DFI & Associates, LLC. Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover represented the Arizona Registrar of Contractors with witness Lauren Johnston.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Department Exhibits 1 through 19.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background and Procedure

The Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) issued License No. ROC 329058 to DFI & Associates, LLC. (“Respondent”).

On or about September 23, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Alastair Stansfield (“Complainant”) alleging, among other things, poor work with Respondent’s contracted scope of work (“the workmanship complaint”). Respondent had contracted with Complainant for a residential home remodel located in Tucson, Arizona.

As a result of the workmanship complaint, on January 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely of Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(a); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12) - Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158; and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On January 31, 2025, Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation. On March 28, 2025, an administrative hearing was held. In the April 11, 2025 Decision, Administrative Law Judge Stone considered Respondent’s written argument and concluded that Respondent violated all three of the charged provisions of this State’s contracting laws and recommended that Respondent’s contracting license be suspended for a period of three (3) days and Respondent pay a $500.00 civil penalty.

On or about May 8, 2025, the Registrar issued a Final Administrative Decision and Order affirming the violations and imposing a $500.00 civil penalty.

Complainant then filed a claim with the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund (“the Fund”) to recover the cost of performing the corrective work and completing the project.

As part of the claim process, Complainant submitted bids from two different contractors that Complainant had received to correct the project. The bids from the licensed contractors are detailed as follows:

Bid #1 from STM Development, LLC

Water leaking into the kitchen: remove existing patio door upstairs, flash around the opening, and clean up and reinstall patio door.

NOTE: not a 100% fix for the water leak. No Guarantee.

Demo floor time and remove from property

Dumpster fees for delivery and weight

Level the floor with self-leveling floor patch

Materials allowance including laminate flooring plus moldings and trim

Laminated wood flooring installation including pad and trim

TOTAL: $16,583.75

Bid #2 from Strongbuilt Enterprise, LLC

Flooring Repairs: Floor prep to address cracks or unevenness, perform moisture test on slab, and install new glue down LVP product and baseboards.

Drywall Repairs and paint.

TOTAL: $16,373.83

Leak Upstairs: demolition, lath and stucco, install polyurethane walk deck system to rear walk deck and paint.

Includes a two-year warranty on all facets of the project.

TOTAL: $7,696.92

On August 7, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Administrative Award, finding that Complainant’s actual damages were $13,353.75. Respondent requested a hearing, believing the payout was too high. Complainant did not contest the amount of the administrative award. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) for an evidentiary hearing.

A hearing was held on December 19, 2025 at 9:00am. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing.

Hearing Evidence

On November 12, 2024, a Written Directive from the Registrar was issued. On December 10, 2024, an Amended Directive from the Registrar specified the following in pertinent part:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A). ...

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

Compliant 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 of two 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”.

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.

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.

Contractor Responsibility: Contractor should make necessary repairs.

Possible Defect: Floors not level.

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

Contractor Responsibility: Contractor should make necessary repairs.

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

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

Investigator John Smith determined that Respondent was not in compliance with the Amended Written Directive.

Lauren Johnston, Legal Assistant and Claims Reviewer for the Fund, testified that she reviewed the Complaint, the Written Directive, the Amended Written Directive, the Administrative Law Judge Decision regarding the underlying Complaint, the parties’ contract, the payments made by Complainant to Respondent, the claim Complainant filed with Respondent’s bonding company, the deed to the property, and bids/costs and payments submitted by Complainant for repair/completion of the project, in determining that Complainant was eligible to file a claim with the Fund and in calculating Complainant’s actual damages.

Ms. Johnston determined that upon her review, that Complainant had satisfied the eligibility requirements for a payment from the Fund.

Ms. Johnston testified that her calculation of actual damages took into account the contract price of $44,754.00 and the payments made toward the contract price in the amount of $43,937.00, and concluded that there was a remaining balance on the contract in the amount of $817.00.

Ms. Johnston calculated Complainant’s actual damages by subtracting the amount Complainant still owed toward the parties’ contract ($817.00) from the amount deemed necessary to repair and/or complete the project per Bid #2 ($24,070.75), less the bond payout ($9,900.00) and arrived at the amount of $13,353.75.

Ms. Johnston reviewed the documentation submitted by Complainant with Investigator Smith, and Investigator Smith concurred that a $13,353.75 award from the Fund was appropriate in this case. Also, Investigator Smith explained that he did not accept the lower bid, Bid #1 because STM Development, LLC, would not guarantee elimination of the leak.

Thomas Dailey, Qualifying Party on behalf of Respondent, testified that the sliding glass door on the walk deck was initially installed by Home Depot along with the flashing and that the water leak could have stemmed from that installation. Mr. Dailey testified, in regards to the flooring, only 200 square feet needed to be repaired versus the 763 square feet that was listed in Bid #2. Mr. Dailey admits that Respondent was remiss in not securing a final inspection on its work.

Complainant testified that when he purchased his home he became aware of the non-permitted add-on, however, there were never any internal leaks prior to this project. Complainant further testified that although Home Depot installed the original sliding glass door that Respondent removed upon Complainant’s request, Respondent agreed and was paid to reinstall the sliding glass door.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1132.01(B) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

An award from the residential contractors' recovery fund may not exceed the actual damages suffered by the claimant as a direct result of a contractor's violation. Actual damages:

1. May not exceed an amount necessary to complete or repair a residential structure or appurtenance within residential property lines.

2. Must be established by bids supplied by or the value of work performed by a person that is licensed pursuant to this chapter if the person is required to be licensed pursuant to this chapter.

Respondent, having contested the amount of the proposed payout from the Fund, bears the burden of proof to establish that the proposed payout from the Fund is incorrect by a preponderance of the evidence.

A preponderance of the evidence means “proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”

Respondent had an opportunity to correct and complete its work following the Amended Written Directive from the Registrar and failed to do so. Furthermore, Respondent did not attend the Tribunal hearing and failed to plead its case on the workmanship matter.

After review of all the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the award proposed by the Fund accurately reflected Complainant’s actual damages. Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to a payout from the Fund in the amount of $13,353.75.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing,

It is Recommended that on the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, Complainant receive a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund in the amount of $13,353.75.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, January 8, 2026.

/s/ Nicole Robinson

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Alastair Stansfield

2611 W Camino Del Venegas

Tucson, AZ 85742

[email redacted]

DFI & ASSOC. LLC

460 W Roger Rd Ste. 104

Tucson, AZ 85705

[email redacted]

Charles S. Hover, III

Office of the Attorney General

2005 N Central Ave

Phoenix, AZ 85004-1592

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff