ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-04620-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Michele Wiens,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

John's Handyman LLC,

License No. ROC 328111,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-04620-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: September 15, 2025 and November 5, 2025

APPEARANCES: Michele Wiens appeared on her own behalf. John Harris, Qualifying Party, John Harris, Qualifying Party, failed to appear for September 15, 2025 hearing session; however, he appeared for the further hearing session on November 5, 2025. Investigator Todd Anderson appeared from the ROC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: ROC Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”). _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

John's Handyman LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 328111, designated as R-62 Minor Home Improvements, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) in March 2020.

In February 2025, Michele Wiens (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to bathroom repair including tear-out, moving and repairing plumbing, moving electrical, installation of new sink and new toilet and wall finishing. Complainant paid the total amount of $9,225.00 up front. Complainant was out of town and a friend of hers coordinated with Respondent as the work progressed. When additional work was determined to be necessary and, overall, the work was not completed as had been discussed, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar.

On May 7, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (“Complaint”) against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor workmanship. The Complaint indicated that work began on February 17, 2025, and stopped on March 17, 2025. The Complainant further indicated that $12,033.00 had been paid to Respondent. Complainant wrote:

John told me he was a licensed contractor. I didn't know that there were to different levels of contractors' licenses in AZ. He also told me that he would be done in a week which is why I paid him in full. If he would have done a good job, I would have NEVER KNOWN HE ISN'T LICENSED to do the level of work he claimed.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Todd Anderson. At the June 10, 2025 jobsite inspection, Investigator Anderson reviewed the items on the Complaint and took multiple photographs to document both workmanship issues and the unfinished state of the project.

On June 19, 2025, Investigator Anderson issued a Written Directive to Respondent, which 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 July 11th, 2025.

RESTRICTIONS

You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license. The entire bathroom remodel is beyond the scope of your current license.

..................

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Window flashing removed and not replaced prior to shower wall installation directly to edge

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I did not observe flashing around the bathroom window. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 4 - Pony wall leaves toilet space not to code, toilet was not recentered to space after addition

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The center of the toilet was less than 15” from the shower wall. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 5 - patterned title shower not installed to match pattern, not flush on wall, large gaps on pony wall

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed mismatching patterns, lippage issues, and inconsistencies in the grout widths of the shower tile. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 6 - inconsistent grout lines creating narrow areas and wide areas, some areas missing

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Property Owner directed me to irregular grout lines throughout the interior and exterior of the shower enclosure. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 7 - schlutter trim misaligned at shower edge to pony wall and window wall to floor

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The schluter trim pieces at both of those locations were poorly installed and did not properly align with the adjacent profiles. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 8 - schlutter trim on pony wall and wall niches have sharp edges, corner caps not used

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed several sharp edges at the miter cuts creating the risk of injury. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 10 - wrong color grout used in floor of shower and bathroom floor, supposed to be nutmeg, used moss

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Contractor acknowledged this issue and stated he would correct. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 14 - title baseboards were to installed around entire perimeter

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Baseboards have not yet been installed. Contractor shall complete the installation by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 15 - schlutter trim on baseboards not cut properly and installed poorly

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Contractor shall correct and complete the installation by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 16 - drywall texture is wrong and incomplete with visible tape lines in niches and missing behind sink

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Work is incomplete. Contractor shall complete the work by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 19 - closet side drywall and light switch left unfinished Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Contractor shall complete the installation of the closet drywall and light switch by appropriate means. Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 20 - shower floor pan is installed too high, this will cause water to run out onto floor

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Shower curbs must be a minimum of 2” and a maximum of 9” above the top of the shower drain.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 25 - can see gaps in paint on walls, he insisted he did two coats

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed insufficient paint coverage in several areas of the Master Bathroom walls. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Complaint Item: 26 - copious amounts of grout left on tiles

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Contractor shall correct by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS 32-1154(A)(3) Poor work – A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

When the work was not completed, Investigator Anderson forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department.

On July 16, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Charge :2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) - A.R.S. § 32-1158 Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

Charge :3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16) Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.

Charge :4 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving a written directive from the Registrar.

At the September 15, 2025 hearing, Investigator Anderson testified consistently with the findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes and the Written Directive. The photographs taken at the Jobsite Inspection depicted deficiencies in Respondent’s work at the time of the jobsite inspection. Investigator Anderson testified regarding the scope of an R-62 license and noted that Respondent would not be able to perform the corrective work but would have to (a) offer to resolve the matter financially; (b) apply for the other appropriate licensure; or (c) allow Complainant to pick the appropriate licensed contractor for the corrective work and Respondent would have to pay for that work.

Complainant testified that she had not known that Respondent was not appropriately licensed to do the work.

At the November 5, 2025 hearing, Respondent presented his disagreement with some of the Directive items, referencing multiple photographs from the jobsite inspection photographs. Respondent argued that the tile used was not supposed to match, that he had used the correct spacers, and that he had not been able to finish that work which would have cleaned up the grout work. Respondent argued that the baseboards were not completed in areas where a cabinet was going in and, if the baseboards had been in place, the cabinet would not have been able to be installed. Respondent also argued that Complainant had taken off some of the baseboards after he had installed them. Overall, Respondent argued that he had not yet finished the work at the time he had been working on the project.

Since the date of the November 5, 2025 hearing, Complainant has not notified the Tribunal that the parties were able to informally resolve the matter.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s ROC License record on November 26, 2025. Respondent’s ROC License record reflects that this Complaint is the only open ROC complaint.

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 purpose of the Registrar’s licensing statutes is to protect the public from unscrupulous, unqualified, and financially irresponsible contractors. See Aesthetic Property Maintenance v. Capital Indem. Corp., 183 Ariz. 74, 900 P. 2d 1210 (1995).

Construction is not a perfect art and, normally, contractors must be allowed an opportunity to correct poor workmanship before their licenses may be suspended or revoked as a result of a failure to comply with workmanship standards.

The hearing evidence clearly established that Respondent’s work on this project was outside the scope of his licensure. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16).

The hearing evidence demonstrated that Respondent failed to comply with written contract requirements. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent was in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158.

The hearing evidence established that, through this project, Respondent failed to comply with Registrar rules and did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).

The hearing evidence further established that Respondent failed to complete, or have completed, the directed corrective work during the period of the Written Directive. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a Written Directive from the Registrar, without valid justification, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 328111 for a period of five (5) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to submit a written contract form that complies with the requirements set forth in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158 no later than thirty (30) days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order.

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to develop such written contract and make the submission on or before thirty (30) days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, November 26, 2025.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Todd Anderson

[email redacted]

John's Handyman LLC

[email redacted]

Michele Wiens

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff