ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-05940-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-12-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Gabriel Bowman,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Big Buckle Roofing, LLC,

License No. ROC 343623,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-05940-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 8, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Gabriel Bowman appeared on his own behalf. Respondent Big Buckle Roofing, LLC failed to appear. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Miles Crosby appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Big Buckle Roofing, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 343623 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).

On or about August 21, 2024, Gabriel Bowman (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to replace Complainant’s existing asphalt roof with a metal roof. The total contract price for Respondent’s scope of work was $85,631.00. Complainant has paid Respondent a total of $55,000.00.

On or about June 15, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to Respondent’s scope of work.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Miles Crosby. Investigator Crosby performed a Jobsite Inspection on June 25, 2025. Investigator Crosby’s Jobsite Inspection Notes indicate the following:

The Respondent had a representative, Eric, present who advised he was a consultant for multiple companies and was able to speak on behalf of Big Buckle Roofing LLC. Overall the roof does not meet industry standards nor does it meet the manufactures installation instructions. Multiple areas do not have the correct fasteners or the correct application of the material. These areas were documented in the photos and will be

sent to the parties. As it stands now the area of the roof that is complete does not meet standards and should be correct by appropriate means prior to completion. Any areas that were affected by the abandonment of the job must be corrected by appropriate means as well. This would include exposed underlayment that has been exposed longer than 90 days or longer than the manufactures recommended exposure time, whether it be less or more. This would also include any damage to installed roofing material, underlayment not exposed but perhaps damaged, and/or any decking material damaged. A thorough inspection of the roof should be conducted prior and any and all areas damaged as a result of the abandonment should be corrected by appropriate means, including any removal and replacement of materials due to this damage.

Eric also advised the incorrect fastening system was used for the roof system. This may result in an entire new system needing to be installed due to unsalvageable materials.

Investigator Crosby issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated July 1, 2025, that 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 Saturday, July 28, 2025.

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

Currently the Respondents license is Suspended and will need to be

resolved prior to any work being performed. The Respondent is also

not permitted to conduct any other work during this time.

The Respondent must evaluate and inspect all materials installed to

determine if the materials meet the manufactures quality and

installation standards.

Complaint Item: 1 - Box Vent Flashing - Partially missing or incomplete;

others are installed improperly and loose.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 2 - Metal Drip Edge - Partially missing or not installed;

other are installed improperly and loose.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 3 - Metal Roof Ridge Cap - Partially missing or incomplete; others are improperly installed and loose

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 4 - Metal Valley Trim - installation is not completed

properly

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 5 - Standing Seam Gable Trim - Partially Missing

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 6 - Metal Roof Ridge Foam - Improperly installed

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent will need to correct this by the appropriate means.

On July 29, 2025, after the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive had expired, Investigator Crosby ascertained that Respondent had not performed any corrective work and Respondent had not requested an extension of the deadline for compliance.

Thereafter, Investigator Crosby forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1), 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).

The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

On September 3, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing advising the parties of the hearing date and time, and that the Office of Administrative Hearings would issue a Google Meet link for participation in the hearing. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and email addresses of record with the Registrar.

On September 9, 2025, the Tribunal issued to the parties an Order that reiterated the hearing date and time and contained the Google Meet link to join the hearing by video or phone. That Order was sent to Respondent’s email address of record.

On the date and at the time set for hearing, Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Investigator Crosby was also present. Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Because Respondent failed to appear, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.

Investigator Crosby testified consistently with his findings contained in his Jobsite Inspection Notes and the Written Directive. Investigator Crosby referenced the photographs taken during the Jobsite Inspection to illustrate the deficiencies in Respondent’s workmanship. Investigator Crosby testified that the entire roof needed to be corrected by appropriate means.

Investigator Crosby testified that Respondent had a “consultant” present at the Jobsite Inspection who agreed with all of his findings.

On August 1, 2025, after the expiration of the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Respondent emailed Investigator Crosby, stating that Respondent was “waiting on materials.”

Investigator Crosby explained that Respondent’s contract documents failed to contain Respondent’s address and license number, the date of completion for the project, the date the contract was executed, payment terms, applicable taxes, and that the property owner has the right to file a written complaint with the Registrar.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Crosby’s testimony. Complainant testified that Respondent performed limited work on the project in November 2025, specifically related to “hip covers.” Complainant testified that portions of the roof are detaching resulting in leaks and damage to the interior of the home. Complainant testified that other contractors have recommended that the roof be removed and replaced due to its poor condition.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on December 15, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 343623 was first issued on March 8, 2023, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there are seven (7) open complaints, including the instant Complaint, one (1) resolved/settled complaint, and no 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 credible evidence of record established that Respondent abandoned its contract with Complainant without legal excuse. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1).

The credible evidence of record 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 did not contain all of the statutorily required elements for a written contract. 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 issuance of the Written Directive and that valid justification for such failure did not exist. 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 343623 for a period of fourteen (14) 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.

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that it has amended its contracts to include the nine (9) terms required by A.R.S. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its contracts into compliance with A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) within thirty (30) days, its contractor’s license shall be suspended until it demonstrates that it has done so.

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, December 15, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Big Buckle Roofing, LLC

[email redacted]

Gabriel Bowman

[email redacted]

Miles Crosby

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff