ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-11687-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-12
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Lauren Corine McLean,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Construction With Quality By
Williams and Sons, LLC
License No. ROC 251435,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-11687-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 28, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Lauren Corine McLean appeared on her own behalf with her husband, Brian Richardson. Cindy Williams appeared on behalf of Respondent Construction With Quality By Williams and Sons, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Cooke appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
Construction With Quality By Williams and Sons, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 251435 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Cynthia Williams is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and sole Member.
On or about July 7, 2023, Lauren Corine McLean (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to remove an existing block wall and construct a new block wall in its place. The contract price was $18,650.00. Complainant has paid Respondent in full.
On or about October 17, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Michael Springer. On December 4, 2024, Investigator Springer conducted a Jobsite Inspection. Investigator David Cooke accompanied Investigator Springer to the Jobsite Inspection.
On December 11, 2024, Investigator Springer issued a Written Directive to Respondent with a deadline for compliance of December 23, 2024.
During the period of the Written Directive, Investigator Springer received several communications from the parties regarding scheduling, and Respondent requested an extension of the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive due to the size of the job, and the temperatures not being conducive to the required corrective work.
Investigator Cooke was re-assigned the Complaint, and on January 16, 2025, Investigator Cooke issued a Written Directive that extended the deadline for compliance to January 27, 2025. That Written Directive 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 Monday, January 27, 2025.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - The brick wall is already crumbling in several spots, with cracks appearing through bricks and deep holes in grout.
Investigator’s Observation: There are numerous voids in the grout lines over 1/8", These should be filled. There are several small chipped edges on some blocks. This is normal for a block wall and not excessive. I noted several main wall blocks and several top cap blocks that are cracked. These should be replaced. Grout lines are messy, excess grout is smeared over random locations of the wall. These areas should be cleaned. Several areas with cracking at grout joints, two areas with stair stepping of walls, These are not over 1/8" and meet standard at this time.
Complaint Item: 2 - The brick wall wasn’t built straight or level and is wavy and the bricks are misaligned and looks very poor.
Investigator’s Observation: Control joints are out of plumb, over 1/4" on
East wall and are easily moveable by hand. Mortar in these joints has failed and falling out. Blocks are very inconsistent throughout on the face with blocks sticking out more than others.
Complaint Item: 3 - One entire section on the east side of the wall is already falling away from the property and we fear it will fall over.
Investigator’s Observation: This section is 1/4" out of plumb and moves easily.
Complaint Item: 7 - There is concrete and grout splatter remaining in our yard and on our house. They did not clean up after themselves.
Investigator’s Observation: Several areas where grout was spilled, on the gate and random areas.
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Complaint Item: 4 - Almost every expansion joint is void of grout and this is the third time it has happened now, within one year.
Investigator’s Observation: Addressed in item 2.
Complaint Item: 5 - The wall is wobbly by hand and we’re not sure of its structural integrity.
Investigator’s Observation: Addressed in item 2.
Complaint Item: 6 - It is so sloppy, there is excess grout all over the faces of the wall which the workers told us would go away with rain.
Investigator’s Observation: Addressed in item 1.
All errors and emphasis in original.
On or about February 14, 2025, Investigator Cooke conducted a Compliance Inspection. Investigator Cooke’s Compliance Notes state the following:
Complaint Item: 1 - The brick wall is already crumbling in several spots, with cracks appearing through bricks and deep holes in grout.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: There are numerous voids in the grout lines over 1/8", These should be filled. There are several small chipped edges on some blocks. This is normal for a block wall and not excessive. I noted several main wall blocks and several top cap blocks that are cracked. These should be replaced. Grout lines are messy, excess grout is smeared over random locations of the wall. These areas should be cleaned. Several areas with cracking at grout joints, two areas with stair stepping of walls, These are not over 1/8" and meet standard at this time.
Compliance Observation: Numerous voids still evident in block wall over 1/8”. Multiple cracked blocks both in the wall and the cap blocks were still visible at the time of inspection. Several areas of the wall needed to be cleaned at the time of inspection.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 2 - The brick wall wasn’t built straight or level and is wavy and the bricks are misaligned and looks very poor.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Control joints are out of plumb, over 1/4" on East wall and are easily moveable by hand. Mortar in these joints has failed and falling out. Blocks are very inconsistent throughout on the face with blocks sticking out more than others.
Compliance Observation: Some control joints were filled with an adhesive, others were not. Block faces were still inconsistent and sticking out throughout the wall.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 3 - One entire section on the east side of the wall is already falling away from the property and we fear it will fall over.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: This section is 1/4" out of plumb and moves easily.
Compliance Observation: A portion of the east wall was removed and replaced but not completed. Wall is still easily moveable with minimal force.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 7 - There is concrete and grout splatter remaining in our yard and on our house. They did not clean up after themselves.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Several areas where grout was spilled, on the gate and random areas.
Compliance Observation: Concrete and grout splatter was still evident on the property.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
All errors and emphasis in original.
Thereafter, Investigator Cooke 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)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely, A.R.S. § 32-1158, 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 hearing of this matter was scheduled to convene on April 23, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. On the date and time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on her own behalf, with her husband, Brian Richardson. Mark Saric, Esq. represented Respondent. Mark Williams and Cynthia Williams were present on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Cooke appeared as a witness.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties participated in settlement discussions outside of the presence of the Administrative Law Judge. Following those discussions, the parties informed the Tribunal that they had reached a resolution, however, needed additional time in which to execute the terms of their agreement. Consequently, the hearing was continued and set for a written Status Update on June 23, 2025.
On June 20, 2025, Respondent’s counsel filed a Status Update, requesting that the matter be set for an additional status update in order to afford the parties additional time to resolve the matter. The matter was set for an additional Status Update on July 23, 2025.
On July 11, 2025, Complainant filed a Status Update requesting that the matter be reset for hearing due to the fact that the parties were unable to resolve their differences, stating that Respondent had abandoned the project.
On July 14, 2025, an Order issued advising the parties of the continued hearing date and time of August 28, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.
On August 14, 2025, Respondent’s counsel withdrew from representation of Respondent.
On August 28, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., Complainant appeared on her own behalf with her husband. Cindy Williams appeared on behalf of Respondent. Investigator Cooke appeared as a witness.
Investigator Cooke testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directives and the Compliance Inspection Notes. Investigator Cooke testified that Respondent’s contract documents failed to include the required information concerning the right to file a complaint with the Registrar.
Investigator Cooke conducted a prehearing inspection on August 26, 2025. Investigator Cooke testified that approximately six feet of the wall had not been replaced, there were large piles of debris, concrete splatter along the house, plants had been removed and not replaced, and the footers needed to be covered.
Investigator Cooke testified that there had been no allegations of denial of access and that the parties were in communication during the period of the Written Directive.
Complainant testified that she agreed with Investigator Cooke’s testimony. Complainant also testified that the remaining six feet of the front wall “is movable by hand” and that the wall is not structurally sound. Complainant asserted that the “footers are not acceptable” as the east wall “footer bricks are missing mortar.” Complainant further asserted that Respondent did not complete the corrective work and did not clean up. Complainant testified that she gave Respondent “every opportunity” to complete the corrective work and the wall is still not completed. At one point, work had to be halted because the permit was invalid. Complainant also explained that Ms. Williams’ husband who works for Respondent, was no longer allowed on the property due to a “terrifying history.” Complainant testified that she was fearful of him, and due to feeling unsafe in their home, Complainant invested substantial sums of money in a security system.
Ms. Williams testified that she agreed that “work needed to be redone” and explained the corrective work Respondent performed. Ms. Williams also acknowledged that full compliance with the Written Directive was not achieved as Respondent did not complete six feet of the wall and did not clean up the site. Ms. Williams asserted that Respondent replaced almost 200 feet of wall, but did not replace the final six feet.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 11, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 251435 was first issued on December 14, 2008, and is suspended. Such prior License record also reflects that there are three open complaints, including the instant open Complaint, one resolved/settled complaint, and one complaint 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’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. 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’s contract documents failed to include all of the statutorily required elements for written contracts. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to comply with the Registrar’s statute in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12).
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 any affirmative defense 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 Number 251435 for a period of seven (7) 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, September 12, 2025.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Construction with Quality
By Williams and Sons, LLC
c/o Cynthia Williams
Qualifying Party/Manager
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Lauren Corine McLean
[email redacted]
David Cooke
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff