ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-08018-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-19

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Roger Carmichael,

COMPLAINANT,

K OS REMODELERS LLC,

License No. ROC 356602,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-08018-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: December 29, 2025

APPEARANCES: Roger Carmichael appeared on his own behalf. Qualifying Party Milton Shackleford appeared representing K OS Remodelers LLC. Investigator David Fagerburg appeared from the Registrar of Contractors.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

K OS Remodelers LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. 356602, a B-3 General Remodeling and Repair, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar” or “ROC”) in January 2025.

In June 2025, Roger Carmichael (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for remodeling in a residence bathroom and construction of a bathroom addition for the contracted price of $42,200.00. The work began on June 2, 2025 and stopped on July 28, 2025.

On August 11, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (“Complaint”) against Respondent from Complainant. The Complaint alleged poor work and incomplete work.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg (“Investigator”), who scheduled a jobsite inspection for August 22, 2025.

Both Complainant and Respondent were present at the August 28, 2025 jobsite inspection. At that time, Respondent allowed three complaint Addendum items to be included and addressed. Investigator reviewed the Complainant and Addendum items with the parties and took multiple photographs to document the poor workmanship and resulting conditions of the project.

At that time, Respondent acknowledged to Investigator that there was no permit obtained for the bathroom work. Further, Respondent acknowledged to Investigator that he had assisted in the installation of electrical and plumbing work.

After review of the parties’ contract, Investigator issued a Warning Letter to Respondent for alleged violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1158 for Respondent’s failure to include all nine required minimum elements in its written contracts, including its contract with Complainant.

Investigator also issued a Warning Letter to Respondent for alleged violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16) for performing work which was outside the scope of Respondent’s license.

On September 2, 2025, Investigator 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 Tuesday, September 23, 2025.

RESTRICTIONS

• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

. . . . . . . .

Complaint Narrative: Contract stated job will be completed in 30 days time. Approaching 2 months, July 24th, I asked contractor for an end date. He said things would be completed on July 28th. At the end of the 28th, job was still not complete. My daughters and I attempted to talk with contractor. He became defensive and angry, so told him to pack his stuff .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item 1: Floor tile uneven and popping off. Grout lines uneven

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the downstairs bathroom addition I observed floor tile with lippage that exceeds 1/32”, grout lines that are not uniform or consistent and poorly installed floor tile with little to no thin set mortar applied. See P (27) thru P (35) and P (49) thru P (51). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections, correct the poorly installed floor tile at the downstairs bathroom addition and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (2) (B) Departure from or disregard of a building code, ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item 2: Shower tiles cut badly, with gouges and scratches on multiple tiles, in upstairs bathroom.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the upstairs bathroom the complainant showed me wall tile installed with chips and saw cut marks on some of the tiles. See P (3) thru P (9). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections, correct

the poorly installed shower wall tile at the upstairs bathroom and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 3: Shower tiles not square in outside bathroom.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the downstairs bathroom I observed shower tiles that are not square with the wall where there is frosted glass installed. See P (38), P (43) and P (49) thru P (51). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all

inspections, correct the shower tile that is not square at the downstairs bathroom addition and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 4: Opening for shower door not plumb. Also uneven at 56” at bottom to 57” at top.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the downstairs bathroom I observed an opening for the shower door is not plumb and is uneven from bottom to top. See P (38) thru P (40) and P (49) thru P (51). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all

inspections and correct the shower door opening that is not plumb at the downstairs bathroom addition and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 5: Pieces of shower floor are missing

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the upstairs and downstairs bathrooms I observed pieces of shower tile that are loose or are missing. See P (13), P (41) and P (42). Prior to performing any corrective or completing the project work the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections and correct the shower floor tile that is loose or missing at the upstairs shower and the downstairs bathroom addition and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 6: Bath tub is not set. It moves about. I’m concerned of causing leaks at drains. Electrical to tub not complete.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the upstairs bathroom I observed a jetted soaker bathtub installed that moves and is not set securely. During this jobsite investigation the respondent acknowledged at least assisting in performing the electrical and plumbing for the upstairs jetted bathtub. See P (14), P (15), P (25), P (46) and P (47). Any electrical or plumbing corrective work must be performed by a licensed electrician and licensed plumbing contractor. Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections, correct the upstairs jetted bathtub that is not securely installed and moves and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 7: Door to bedroom not squared. Transition board absent

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the downstairs bathroom the complainant demonstrated that the door leading to the existing bedroom will not close and showed me there is no transition between the carpet and the bathroom floor tile. See P (28), P (36), P (37) and P (49) thru P (51). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections and correct the bedroom door that is not square and is missing the transition at the downstairs bathroom addition to the existing bedroom and complete the project in a

timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 8: Shower head not in. Handheld is missing the head.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the downstairs bathroom I observed and am able to verify the shower head is not installed and the hand held component is missing the head. See P (38) and P (49) thru P (51). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the

City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 9: Glass in outside shower not placed or sealed properly. Questioning use of frosted glass, as opposed to tempered glass.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the downstairs bathroom I observed what appears to be standard frosted glass. The respondent stated the glass is tempered. See P (38), P (43), P (44) and P (49) thru P (51). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass

all inspections, ensure the frosted shower glass is tempered and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 10: Schleuter edges are sharp, in both bathrooms.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the upstairs bathroom remodel and the downstairs bathroom additional I observed tile Schluter with cuts that are jagged, sharp and poorly cut. See P (10) thru P (12) and P (43). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements,

pass all inspections, correct the tile Schulter with sharp edges that are poorly cut at both bathrooms and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 11: Lights in ceilings in both bathrooms not set

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the upstairs bathroom remodel and the downstairs bathroom addition I observed can lights with gaps at the ceiling or no lighting installed. See P (16) thru P (18). Any electrical corrective work must be performed by a licensed electrician. Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix

Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections,correct the lighting that is not set and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 12: Caulking around toilets are not done.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the upstairs bathroom remodel and the downstairs bathroom addition I observed toilets that are not caulked. See P (19), P (20), P (30) and P (35). Any plumbing corrective work must be performed by a licensed plumbing contractor. Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning &

Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections, and complete the caulking at both toilets by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 13: Flusher for upstairs toilet poorly designed and completed

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the upstairs bathroom remodel the complainant showed me a wall mounted flusher installed. It appears the cover plate cannot be removed without removing the tile Schluter. See P (21). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections and ensure there is access to the wall mounted flusher in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 14: Primary bedroom is a “dust bowl” Contractor did not adequately prevent dust flow.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the upstairs primary bedroom the complainant stated that all the personal belongings were removed from the upstairs bathroom and were stored in the primary bedroom prior to the respondent staring the remodel project and showed me excessive amounts of dust and construction debris on all the belongings in the room. See P (22) thru P (24). It is more likely than not

that the dust and debris observed is due to the respondent not establishing containment from the bathroom prior to starting the remodel project. The respondent shall remove the excess dust and debris throughout the primary bedroom in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Complaint Item 15: Baseboards missing

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation outside the upstairs bathroom remodel in the hallway the complainant showed me where a doorway was closed off and the baseboard has not been installed. See P (26). Downstairs below the upstairs bathroom remodel I observed baseboard missing where a pony wall was built to conceal the modified drain lines for the upstairs bathroom remodel. See P (25). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Complaint Item 17: Grass area replaced poorly

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the backyard of the home the complainant showed me where the respondent installed a drain line and clean out for the downstairs bathroom addition and in doing so had to pull up the existing synthetic turf. The synthetic turf observed is uneven, lumpy with a zig zag seam and may cause a tripping hazard. See P (45) thru P (51). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix

Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections, correct the synthetic turf that is poorly replaced and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 1: Vanity plumbing at both bathrooms is not installed per industry standard. Missing escutcheon plates

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed Pex water supply lines installed at both upstairs and downstairs bathroom vanities that are not secured and are missing the escutcheon plates. See P (52) thru P (54). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass

all inspections, correct the water supply lines in both bathrooms and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 2: Upstairs shower glass door poorly installed

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the upstairs bathroom I observed poorly installed shower glass. The fixed panel is out of square and the door was taped closed and does not line up with the fixed panel. See P (55) thru P (60). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department, comply with all

requirements, pass all inspections, correct the poorly installed shower glass at the upstairs shower and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Addendum Complaint Item 3: Carpet missing in upstairs bathroom closet

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the upstairs bathroom closet I observed carpet missing. See P (61). The respondent shall complete the missing carpet in the upstairs bathroom closet and the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108 Poor work, not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item 16: Left a mess in the backyard. Trash not removed

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant

acknowledged most of the mess and trash in the backyard has been cleaned up by the complainant.

Governing Rule: ARS § 32-1155 (D) (2) (Modification)

Complaint Item 18: I have already cleaned up most of the trash left, before I was aware I should leave things as is.

Investigator’s Observation: This complaint item has been previously addressed in complaint item 16.

Governing Rule: No Action

On September 5, 2025, Complainant e-mailed Investigator with two additional complaint items.

On September 24, 2025, Investigator conducted an Addendum Jobsite inspection. Complainant was present; Respondent was not present.

On September 24, 2025, Investigator issued the Amended Directive to Respondent, which provided as follows:

Addendum #2 Complaint Item 1: The pictures and video show where the contractor did not seal the holes he drilled into the concrete to run the drain and water lines. Those are from the August 26th monsoon rainstorm. I am enclosing video and pictures from September 3rd rainstorm.

Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite addendum investigation the complainant showed me where the respondent drilled a hole in the concrete foundation to install a sewer drain line from the new bathroom on the patio of the home and tied into an existing sewer drain line. I also observed evidence of water and mud damage to the flooring in the

room where the respondent built a pony wall to enclose the water and sewer drain lines. See P (3) thru P (12). Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections, correct the hole in the concrete foundation and the damaged caused to the flooring and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

Addendum #2 Complaint Item 2: the toilet outside does not flush well. This was pointed out to contractor a few days prior to my asking him to leave.

Investigator’s Observation: At this addendum jobsite investigation I did not attempt flush the toilet in the new bathroom installed on the back patio as this is non-permitted work. Prior to performing any corrective work or completing the project the respondent shall obtain a permit from the City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department, comply with all requirements, pass all inspections, ensure the toilet flushes adequately

and complete the project in a timely manner by appropriate means.

On October 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of the applicable statutes:

Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)

Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state of any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.

Charge :2 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): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

Charge :3 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 :4 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16)

Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of the license or licenses of the licensee.

Charge :5 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.

The matter was not resolved informally between the parties.

At the December 29, 2025 hearing, Investigator testified in depth regarding the background of the Complaint, his findings, and the determinations set forth in the Written Directive and the Amended Directive. Investigator indicated that, at the jobsite inspection, Respondent had acknowledged the lack of permit and his assistance in the electrical and plumbing work at the project.

The photographs taken at the jobsite Inspection(s) depicted deficiencies in Respondent’s work at the time of those jobsite inspections.

Investigator noted that there had been 8 document mailings in this matter that had been sent to Respondent but were returned to the Registrar as undeliverable, as “not known” and “unable to forward.” Investigator stressed that licensees are responsible to update their addresses with the Registrar. Investigator further indicated the e-mails were received by Respondent, noting that Respondent’s Answer to the Citation was filed from the e-mail address being used by, and on file with, the Registrar.

At hearing, Complainant testified that, after the issuance of the Written Directive and Amended Directive, he had not heard from Respondent. Complainant noted his agreements with the items set forth in the Written Directive and Amended Directive.

Complainant indicated that he had paid Respondent a total of $24,000.00. Complainant indicated that the only time Respondent reached out to him was about payment of the balance on the contract.

Regarding the permit, Complainant testified that Respondent had said it was not needed “because the inspectors don’t even come out.”

At hearing, Respondent testified that the project was not complete and that, at that one particular point, Complainant had asked him to pack his tools and leave. Regarding the permit, Respondent stated that he had done other work at Complainants without permits in order to save money and that he had just been following Complainant’s direction.

Respondent argued that he could not get ahold of Complainant for access and that access would have been needed in order to prepare the plans needed for obtaining a permit. Respondent argued that he had lost money on the project and he had to pay times for the “glass” to be fixed. Respondent stated that he had only received $20,000.00 on the project and mentioned a check that should have been written for $8,000.00.

Respondent indicated that there had been some medical issues/hospitalization and a death in the family, and that he had not received the ROC mailings. Respondent stated that he had wanted to send another contractor to work on the project but could not reach Complainant to make arrangements.

Since the time of the hearing, Complainant has not advised the Tribunal that the parties have resolved the matter.

Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public records and Respondent’s ROC License record on January 18, 2026. The public record indicates that Respondent has two open cases with the Registrar. The public record does not contain an updated address for Respondent.

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 Directives mandated correction of the Investigator-determined workmanship issues. An appropriate period of time was given for the corrections and there is no evidence that Respondent requested an extension of the time period. The hearing record demonstrates that Respondent did not perform, or have any corrective work done, to complete the Directives’ items.

The hearing record did not evidence that, as had been directed, Respondent developed, and provided to the ROC, a written contract form that would comply with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the hearing record demonstrated that Respondent was in violation Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(12), specifically Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158.

The evidence established that Respondent had performed some assistance in electrical and plumbing work on the project. Therefore, the hearing record demonstrated that Respondent contracted and worked beyond the scope of its license in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(16).

The evidence established that Respondent had not obtained any permits for the projects that would have been required by city building codes. Therefore, the hearing record demonstrated that Respondent disregarded the applicable building codes in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b).

The evidence established that Respondent’s construction work on this project was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent 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 evidence established that Respondent failed to complete 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 Respondent’s ROC License 356602 be suspended for (5) five business days beginning on the effective day of the Registrar’s final Order in this matter.

It is recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to submit a new written contract form that includes all nine required minimum elements pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat § 32-1158.

It is further recommended that, on or before thirty (30) days after the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall provide a sample written contract to the Registrar to demonstrate that Respondent has amended its written contracts to include the nine terms required by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A). If Respondent fails to establish to the Registrar that it has brought its written contracts into compliance with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1158(A) within thirty days, Respondent’s ROC License 356602 shall be suspended until Respondent demonstrates that it has done so.

It is 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 ROC License 356602, 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 Administrative Law Judge Decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the Administrative Law Judge 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, January 19, 2026.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

David Fagerburg

[email redacted]

Roger Carmichael

523 E Rockwood DR

Phoenix, AZ 85024

[email redacted]

K OS REMODELERS LLC

13291 W. McDowell Rd. Suite E-5

Goodyear, AZ 85395

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff