ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-06445-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-10
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Billy Alley,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Storm Pro Roofing LLC
License No. ROC 338078,
RESPONDENT
No. 2025A-06445-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 15, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Billy Alley
Respondent: Catherine Hansen
Chris McGown
Registrar of Contractors: John Smith, Investigator
Heath Richards, Observing
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Storm Pro Roofing (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 338078 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on May 9, 2022.
On or about August 1, 2024, Billy Alley (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, roof replacement. The contract did not include an estimated time of completion, and the registrar’s contact information and notice of the customer’s right to file a complaint was not provided in at least 10-point bold type.
On or about June 30, 2025, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
On July 2, 2025, Investigator Smith issued a Warning Letter for violation of A.R.S. § 32-1158(A) – minimum elements of a contract, advising Respondent that its contract was missing one of the nine required elements.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Smith, who issued a Jobsite Inspection Notice on July 2, 2025, scheduling the inspection for July 25, 2025.
Investigator Smith conducted the jobsite inspection on July 25, 2025, and Respondent was not present. Following the inspection, Investigator Smith issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on July 25, 2025 that provided as follows:
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: “Roof is leaking causing several locations of water stains, front and back of house”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The following deficiencies were observed during the ROC jobsite inspection:
• The original roof edge metal has not been removed.
• New roof edge metal is installed over the pre-existing roof edge metal at rake edges of the roof.
• New roof edge metal has been installed on the eave edges of the roof
o The new roof edge metal is not sized appropriately;
o Causing the shingle to curl up and have a negative slope.
o Areas of the new roof edge metal have no fasteners.
• There are no shingle starter rows along the eave edges of the back side of the roof.
• Areas of damaged/torn underlayment along the eave edges.
• Areas of missing underlayment.
• The roof is leaking.
• The leaking has caused several locations of water stains/damage.
• There are several locations of torn / damaged shingles.
Complaint Item 2: “There are no shingle starter rows along the edges of the roof. Underlayment along the eave edges is damaged and torn.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The following deficiencies were observed during the ROC jobsite inspection:
• The original roof edge metal has not been removed.
• New roof edge metal is installed over the pre-existing roof edge metal at rake edges of the roof.
• New roof edge metal has been installed on the eave edges of the roof
o The new roof edge metal is not sized appropriately;
o Causing the shingle to curl up and have a negative slope.
o Areas of the new roof edge metal have no fasteners.
• There are no shingle starter rows along the eave edges of the back side of the roof.
• Areas of damaged/torn underlayment along the eave edges.
• Areas of missing underlayment.
• The roof is leaking.
• The leaking has caused several locations of water stains/damage.
• There are several locations of torn / damaged shingles.
Complaint Item 3: “The leaking has caused several locations of water stains. Several locations of torn/damaged shingles.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The following deficiencies were observed during the ROC jobsite inspection:
• The original roof edge metal has not been removed.
• New roof edge metal is installed over the pre-existing roof edge metal at rake edges of the roof.
• New roof edge metal has been installed on the eave edges of the roof
o The new roof edge metal is not sized appropriately;
o Causing the shingle to curl up and have a negative slope.
o Areas of the new roof edge metal have no fasteners.
• There are no shingle starter rows along the eave edges of the back side of the roof.
• Areas of damaged/torn underlayment along the eave edges.
• Areas of missing underlayment.
• The roof is leaking.
• The leaking has caused several locations of water stains/damage.
• There are several locations of torn / damaged shingles.
Complaint Item 4: “Original roof edge metal not been removed”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The following deficiencies were observed during the ROC jobsite inspection:
• The original roof edge metal has not been removed.
• New roof edge metal is installed over the pre-existing roof edge metal at rake edges of the roof.
• New roof edge metal has been installed on the eave edges of the roof
o The new roof edge metal is not sized appropriately;
o Causing the shingle to curl up and have a negative slope.
o Areas of the new roof edge metal have no fasteners.
• There are no shingle starter rows along the eave edges of the back side of the roof.
• Areas of damaged/torn underlayment along the eave edges.
• Areas of missing underlayment.
• The roof is leaking.
• The leaking has caused several locations of water stains/damage.
• There are several locations of torn / damaged shingles.
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 is missing the following information:
• An estimated date of completion
• Information about the customer’s right to file a complaint with the registrar
o Included, but not in at least ten-point bold type.
• Contact information for the registrar
o Included, but not in at least ten-point bold type.
The Written Directive required Respondent to notify Investigator Smith of Respondent’s compliance with the directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 2025.
On August 11, 2025, Complainant informed Investigator that no corrective work had been performed on the project. Additionally, Investigator Smith noted Respondent did not provide a compliant version of its contract.
On August 14, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with 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 submitted an Answer to the Citation on August 15, 2025. Respondent’s Answer asserted that all work contracted for was completed timely and in full within industry standards, Complainant inspected and verbally approved all work, Respondent fulfilled all contractual obligations and any subsequent dissatisfaction expressed was unfounded.
The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On September 10, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case setting the hearing for October 15, 2025.
The hearing was held via Google Meet on October 15, 2025.
Investigator Smith testified in support of his jobsite inspection findings, Written Directive, compliance inspection findings, and the Citation. Specifically, Investigator Smith testified Respondent advised him the day after the jobsite inspection that all work had been completed; however, the work Respondent was referring to was work done prior to the jobsite inspection. Additionally, Investigator Smith noted that as of September 11, 2025, Respondent’s license had been revoked due to a separate complaint.
Complainant testified in agreement with the record and Investigator Smith’s testimony.
Mr. McGown testified he believed the matter was not yet resolved and remained pending. On questioning, Mr. McGown testified he had no explanation for why no work was completed during the compliance period.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 15, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 338078 was Revoked on September 11, 2025; and there were three open complaints, one complaint resulting in the revocation of the license, and no resolved/settled complaints against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Respondent’s revoked license does not deprive Complainant of the right to prosecute the complaint or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of the complaint.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense 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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work 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 preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to comply with this chapter in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12), namely the contract requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158.
The preponderance of the evidence 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).
“The registrar may impose a civil penalty of not to exceed $500 on a contractor for each violation of subsection A, paragraph 22 of this section.” If a licensee fails to pay the civil penalty, their license is automatically revoked “thirty days after the effective date of the order providing for the civil penalty.” Additionally, any “person who is or was named on a license . . . may not receive a new license under this chapter until the entire civil penalty is paid.”
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall revoke Respondent’s License No. 338078.
It is further recommended that within thirty days of the effective date of the Order Respondent shall provide an amended contract to the Registrar which establishes compliance with the requirements in A.R.S. § 32-1158. If Respondent fails to comply, Respondent’s license shall be suspended until it provides a compliant contract.
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, November 10, 2025.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
[email redacted]
Storm Pro Roofing LLC
[email redacted]
John Smith
[email redacted]
Billy Alley
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff