ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-08187-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-01-08
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Molly Bell,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Gilbert Poolman, LLC,
License Nos. ROC 309759, 289980,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-08187-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: December 31, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Molly Bell appeared on her own behalf. Jake Boyer appeared on behalf of Respondent Gilbert Poolman, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Doug Barrett appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
Gilbert Poolman, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Numbers 309759 and 289980 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about November 26, 2024, Molly Bell (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to perform a remodel of Complainant’s existing pool. The contract price was $23,400.00. Complainant paid Respondent in full.
On or about August 13, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Doug Barrett. After a September 15, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Barrett issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated September 16, 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 Tuesday, October 7, 2025.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Tile Grout chipping, sloppy, leaving large open areas.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the grout/caulk around the pool where the waterline tile meets the rolled coping tile and where the rolled tile meets the decking and it is cracking. Contractor should within the first 12 months repair loose grouting or cracks in grouting. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 2 - Tiles not even/tilting, dirty, one of them is cut.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed a rolled coping tile on the west side of the pool and it was crooked. I observed a cut tile piece at the south end of the pool that had an inconsistent grout line (really wide on one side) and did not match the surrounding tile grout lines. I observed a rolled tile at the center of the skimmer that is cracked. Contractor should correct the three tiles by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 5 - Pool skimmer uneven, missing tiles, and basket.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the opening to the pool
skimmer and the tile at the base is angled leaving part of the opening with tile and part with pebble. Typically this area is all tile per industry standards and practices. I also observed the grout along the inside top of the skimmer and it was cracked and jagged with a gap. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 7 - Block wall was not set against pavers, cracking, and was not replaced with the red original brick
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the block pool equipment wall and where it meets the back wall of the yard the stucco has chipped out and is cracking. There are no set plans for the wall and pavers together. Contractor should correct the cracks/chips in the stucco by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 9 - Above ground plumbing gear is in the middle between position 1/2, due to leaking. piping was metal replaced with plastic.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the fixed pipe fitting on
top of the floor cleaners gear assembly cap and there was a small leak.
Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Complaint Item: 10 - Pavers are sinking, large gaps in between due to wall not backing up to pavers.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified. I observed the pavers and they were sinking in the middle where the respondent had removed them to do plumbing work. There are also gaps in the pavers of 1/4". Joint widths between the pavers in the field should be between 1/16" and 3/16" at the base. Contractor should correct the sinking pavers and excessive gaps by appropriate means.
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Complaint Item: 3 - Jacuzzi Jet inserts not replaced or put back following
remodel.
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. I observed the bench seat in the
pool with two jets in the wall with no inserts. It is unknown if there were inserts prior to the remodel or if any are supposed to be present after the remodel and the contract does not state either. 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: 4 - Pool Light screw is missing, only one in place.
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. This is typical to only have one
screw in the light fixture. 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: 6 - Deck is cracking, uneven, extremely hot missing top
coat.
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. I observed minor cracks in the
decking as pointed out by the complainant and they were less than the
allowable 1/16". No correction required.
Complaint Item: 8 - Concrete slab is uneven.
Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. This item refers to a section of the pool decking around the skimmer and its slope. It is unknown if this entire section was replaced or not. It also matches the surrounding slab grade that was pre-existing. 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.
After the October 7, 2025 deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Investigator Barrett was informed by Complainant that not all of the required corrective work was performed by Respondent.
On October 15, 2025, Investigator Barrett conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Barrett’s Compliance Notes document his observations and state the following:
Complaint Item: 1 - Tile Grout chipping, sloppy, leaving large open areas.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. I observed the grout/caulk around the pool where the waterline tile meets the rolled coping tile and where the rolled tile meets the decking and it is cracking. Contractor should within the first 12 months repair loose grouting or cracks in grouting. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: I observed the grout and it had white silicone applied over the grout around most of the pool but dark grout left in other areas where some tiles were replaced. The area should all be grouted, not with silicone.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 2 - Tiles not even/tilting, dirty, one of them is cut.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. I observed a rolled coping tile on the west side of the pool and it was crooked. I observed a cut tile piece at the south end of the pool that had an inconsistent grout line (really wide on one side) and did not match the surrounding tile grout lines. I observed a rolled tile at the center of the skimmer that is cracked. Contractor should correct the three tiles by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: The cooked tiles on the west side were not repaired. The tile at the south end of the pool was repaired. The cracked tile at the skimmer was not repaired/replaced. Two other tiles were replaced to the left of the skimmer and they are angled up with excessive lippage.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 5 - Pool skimmer uneven, missing tiles, and basket.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. I observed the opening to the pool skimmer and the tile at the base is angled leaving part of the opening with tile and part with pebble. Typically this area is all tile per industry standards and practices. I also observed the grout along the inside top of the skimmer and it was cracked and jagged with a gap. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: No repairs were made to this item.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 7 - Block wall was not set against pavers, cracking, and was not replaced with the red original brick
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. I observed the block pool equipment wall and where it meets the back wall of the yard the stucco has chipped out and is cracking. There are no set plans for the wall and pavers together. Contractor should correct the cracks/chips in the stucco by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: The chipped out stucco was repaired and a cracked returned, however the new crack is within standards at 1/16”.
☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 9 - Above ground plumbing gear is in the middle between position 1/2, due to leaking. piping was metal replaced with plastic
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. I observed the fixed pipe fitting on top of the floor cleaners gear assembly cap and there was a small leak. Contractor should correct by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: This item was repaired, not leak observed.
☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 10 - Pavers are sinking, large gaps in between due to wall not backing up to pavers.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified. I observed the pavers and they were sinking in the middle where the respondent had removed them to do plumbing work. There are also gaps in the pavers of 1/4". Joint widths between the pavers in the field should be between 1/16" and 3/16" at the base. Contractor should correct the sinking pavers and excessive gaps by appropriate means.
Compliance Observation: This item was repaired.
☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED
Thereafter, Investigator Barrett forwarded the Complaint 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).
Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.
Investigator Barrett testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directive and the Compliance Notes. Investigator Barrett testified that Respondent corrected three of the items ordered to be corrected. Investigator Barrett referenced the photographs he took at the Compliance Inspection to illustrate the deficiencies in Respondent’s work, specifically, photographs 3, 4, and 5. Investigator Barrett testified that Respondent used both grout and silicone and that some of the tile was crooked. Investigator Barrett testified that Respondent did not request an extension of the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive.
Complainant agreed with Investigator Barrett’s testimony. Complainant testified that she was initially going to contract with Respondent for the repair of a pool leak. However, the cost of that repair would have been $11,000.00, and therefore, Complainant opted to have a complete pool remodel performed. Respondent completed its work, however, after the project was completed, Complainant noticed that tiles were crooked and the grout was cracked. Respondent attempted to repair the issue, however, the grout cracked again. Complainant contended that Respondent became aggressive and hostile toward her. Complainant credibly testified that Respondent sent a worker to make repairs on the day the Written Directive expired and that she did not deny Respondent access to the jobsite during the period of the Written Directive.
Jake Boyer, Respondent’s owner, testified regarding the work that Respondent accomplished, including the demolition of the wall surrounding the pool equipment, as the wall was sinking due to a leak from the skimmer. In order to repair the leak, the concrete slab for the pool equipment was removed, as well as the pavers between the wall and the pool because they were also sinking. The plumbing beneath the pavers was addressed and Mr. Boyer testified that damage was “unavoidable.” Mr. Boyer testified that when the work was completed, it looked “amazing.”
Mr. Boyer asserted that the use of silicone is standard in the industry, and is not a workmanship issue, but rather a “personal preference,” and that any difference in color was not due to the use of dissimilar products, but rather the age of the grout. Mr. Boyer further contended that cracking at the block wall is standard because “grout dries.”
Mr. Boyer accused Complainant of “weaponizing” the Registrar against Respondent. Mr. Boyer also took issue with Investigator Barrett. Mr. Boyer acknowledged that during the Compliance Inspection, there were items of Complaint still in need of correction, such as the tile and grout lines, and that he contacted Complainant to state that Respondent would make those corrections, however, Mr. Boyer made that offer after the expiration of the deadline set forth in the Written Directive and at that time, Complainant was under no legal obligation to allow Respondent any further opportunity to make corrections.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 6, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 309759 was first issued on November 7, 2016, 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. Such prior License record also reflects that Respondent’s License Number 289980 was first issued on March 5, 2014, and is active. Such prior License record reflects that there are no open complaints (notwithstanding the instant 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 established that portions of Respondent’s work were 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 Written Directive being issued and acknowledged such. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. 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 Numbers 309759 and 289980 for a period of three (3) 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, January 8, 2026.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Gilbert Poolman, LLC
[email redacted]
Molly Bell
[email redacted]
Doug Barrett
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff