ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-06825-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-25
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Miriam Malak,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
ZTR Group, LLC
DBA: Pro Outdoor Living
License No. ROC 356012,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-06825-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: November 12, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Miriam Malak appeared on her own behalf with her husband, John Banquil. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Doug Barrett appeared as a witness. Respondent ZTR Group, LLC, doing business as Pro Outdoor Living, failed to appear.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
ZTR Group, LLC, doing business as Pro Outdoor Living (“Respondent”), is the holder of License Number 356012 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
In or about February 2025, Miriam Malak (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to fully remodel the backyard of Complainant’s residence, including a full pool remodel, installation of a water feature, fireplace, barbeque, pergola, repair of gates, and hard and soft scapes. The total contract price was $194,551.37, which encompassed $135,000.00 for Respondent’s scope of work as Complainant was to purchase the materials for the project. Complainant has paid Respondent in full, in the total amount of $138,900.00, which includes a $3,900.00 change order.
On or about July 11, 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 Doug Barrett. After an August 7, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Barrett issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated August 14, 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 Friday, September 5, 2025.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Unauthorized Removal of existing Electrical Outlet.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the rear patio column where an outlet was prior to the project. There is no mention of the outlet to be removed in the contract. Contractor should correct and re-install the outlet by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 3 - Unfinished Tile Work on planter.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the planter to the left of the staircase and there was no grout installed on the tile or coping. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 4 - Incomplete Pool Water Feature.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the water feature and it was partially constructed. The block portion was not complete, the tile and paint was not completed, and no finish work was completed. Contractor should complete the water feature by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 5 - Artificial Turf Not Properly Installed.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the turf in the backyard and it was pulling up around the entire perimeter in every section. Contractor should inspect the perimeters and correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 7 - Damaged and Unrefurbished Side Gates.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the side gate with old rotted wood and a damaged metal filler piece on the bottom. The respondent agreed in writing to replace the wood and lower the gate down to eliminate the metal piece. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 8 - Unfinished Electrical Outlets in Kitchen Area.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed two popup outlets on site that were supposed to be installed in the outside kitchen area countertop. One to the left of the pizza oven and one to the right of the BBQ. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 9 - Under counter Rope Lighting Not Installed.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the rope lighting on site but not installed under the outside kitchen countertop. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 10 - Basketball Hoop for Pool Not Installed.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the basketball hoop on site but it was not installed at the pool and there was no sleeve present. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 11 - Spa Light improperly installed and/or incorrect light.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the spa light and it does not change colors with or like the pool light. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 12 - Mismatched and Reused Pool Pop-Ups.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the pool pop-up heads and they varied in color shades and brand throughout. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 14 - Planters on Upper Deck sinking into soil.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. This item refers to the two pots placed to the sides of the stairs walking up to the spa deck. I observed these pots and they were leaning over/sinking in the planter box. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 15 - Fireplace Grate and gas plumbing not completed.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the outdoor fireplace and there was a capped off gas line inside and no insert installed. Contractor should correct by appropriate means and complete the fireplace.
Complaint Item: 18 - Spa heater not connected to system.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the heater and it was not functioning during the inspection. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Complaint Item: 2 - Missing Documentation of hired Pool Co and pressure test for pool system.
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. This is a general statement and not a workmanship issue.
Complaint Item: 6 - Damaged and Improperly Reused Pool and Spa Filters.
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. There is no mention of replacing the pool and spa filters in the contract. In response to this complaint item:
There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent Failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108.
Complaint Item: 13 - Inadequate Upper Deck Lighting for usage.
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. The complainant stated the correct number of lights are installed but they do not produce the desired light effect. There is no specifics in the contract for type and model of lighting to be used. In reviewing emails, there is also not a specific type or model of lighting to be installed. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent Failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108.
Complaint Item: 16 - Improper Gas Line Installation/Failure to Complete
Connection.
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Complainant had a different contractor complete this item.
Complaint Item: 17 - Spa Blower not replaced and not functioning.
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. A spa blower is not listed in the contract or emails to be replaced. In response to this complaint item: There is not sufficient evidence to find that the Respondent Failed to meet minimum workmanship standards per A.A.C. R4-9-108.
Investigator Barrett conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection on September 8, 2025. Investigator Barrett’s Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes indicate that only four items were corrected, specifically Complaint Item Numbers 1, 3. 5, and 18.
Thereafter, Investigator Barrett 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)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a), 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 October 7, 2025, the Registrar issued the Notice of Hearing advising the parties that hearing of this matter was scheduled to convene on November 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., 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 October 10, 2025, the Tribunal issued to the parties an Order that contained the Google Meet information to join the hearing by video or phone.
On the date and at the time set for hearing, Complainant appeared with her husband, John Banquil. Investigator Barrett 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 Barrett testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive and the Compliance Jobsite Inspection Notes. Investigator Barrett’s photographs taken during the Jobsite Inspection illustrate the deficiencies in Respondent’s workmanship. Investigator Barrett testified that the time period provided by the Written Directive was “more than sufficient time to complete” the required work.
Complainant testified that she concurred with Investigator Barrett’s testimony.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 21, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 356012 was first issued on December 9, 2024, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints 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 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 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 356012 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, November 25, 2025.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Miriam Malak
[email redacted]
ZTR Group, LLC
DBA: Pro Outdoor Living
[email redacted]
Doug Barrett
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff