ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-08540-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-17
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Marie Wolf,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Enviro Tech Air Conditioning and Heating Inc,
License No. ROC 170595,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-08540-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: February 25, 2026 at 9:00am
APPEARANCES: Complainant Marie Wolf appeared on her own behalf. Investigator Aaron King appeared on behalf of the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. No one appeared on behalf of Respondent.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nicole Robinson
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Registrar of Contractors Notice of Hearing Packet (“Packet”).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Enviro Tech Air Conditioning and Heating, Incorporated (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. ROC 170595, first issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”) on December 11, 2001.
On or about June 20, 2025, Marie Wolf (“Complainant”) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, replacing a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) unit. The contract was in the total amount of $10,000.00 in which Complainant paid, in full.
On or about August 22, 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 Aaron King. On October 3, 2025, Investigator King conducted a jobsite inspection, Respondent was not present. The Jobsite Inspection Notes provided as follows:
Complaint Item: 1- drip pan not at proper pitch upon install and p trap was left upside down after install causing leak & damage
Investigator’s Observation: Evidence provided by the Complainant included dated photos/videos showing the attic condensate pan filled and overflowing with resulting ceiling staining and collapse over the bedroom mattress, plus messages and a statement that the Respondent’s technician returned and corrected the defects: “his worker... came back and did it, and he admitted it when he was here at my house. His name was Carlos... the pitch just wasn’t right on the drip pan... and he fixed it.”
No Respondent representative attended the JSI. Arizona ROC workmanship standards require condensate to be properly trapped and positively sloped to drain per mechanical code. The evidence supports an installation error at the condensate drain line elbow that caused the leak, subsequently corrected by the Respondent’s technician.
ROC confirms that the repair emergency is validated (loss of HVAC in over 100 degree conditions with ongoing water intrusion over a sleeping area), and immediate corrective action was appropriate. All corrective work was not completed. The damage to the home was ignored by the Respondent leaving the collapsed ceiling over the bed, including saturated insulation and mold potential. The Complainant provided more than enough notification and time to allow for repairs which were ultimately responded to by the Respondent with “I am golfing right now” and eventually no responses at all. Upon time passing and no action, the Complainant had to bring in a third party to complete the repair work themselves. As the ceiling was continuing to fall onto the bed below, and continued risk of biological contaminants, the ROC views this as a continuation of emergency repairs not performed by the Respondent, forcing the repairs to be done by an outside third party. Due to this, no directive can be issued and the complaint is forwarded directly to our legal processing.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9- 08, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item: 2- soaked insulation, possible mold, ceiling collapsed, needs new insulation, drywall repair and possible mold treatment
Investigator’s Observation: Evidence provided by the Complainant showed soaked attic insulation, ceiling collapse over a sleeping area, and invoices/photos for third party removal of insulation and drywall, with concerns for possible mold and biological contaminants. The Respondent disputed responsibility but provided no contrary site evidence. As the HVAC work was repaired but no damage was addressed by the Respondent, the home was left incomplete of the repair work required to complete the corrective work associated with the leak caused by the poor workmanship. As the ceiling was continuing to fall onto the bed below, and continued risk of biological contaminants, the ROC views this as a continuation of emergency repairs not performed by the Respondent, forcing the repairs to be done by an outside third party. Due to this, no directive can be issued and the complaint is forwarded directly to our legal processing.
Governing Rule: Workmanship Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
On October 3, 2025, Investigator King did not hold a compliance inspection but drafted compliance notes which provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
Compliance Jobsite General Notes:
No inspection held. No directive issued. Complaint forwarded to Legal. Emergency status of issues caused Complainant to seek correction through third party.
On October 29, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
On December 3, 2025, the Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.
On December 18, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing at 1:00pm on January 29, 2026. The Registrar mailed copies of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent at its address and email address of record.
On January 7, 2026, Investigator King informed the parties that he would be unavailable to attend the January 29, 2026 hearing. The matter was rescheduled.
On January 9, 2026, an order from the Office of Administrative Hearings was emailed and the order advised the parties on how to connect to the hearing via Google Meet. The hearing was held via Google Meet at 9:00am on February 25, 2026.
Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Hearing Evidence
Complainant testified that she got home on June 17, 2025 and the inside of her home was over 90 degrees. Complainant realized that the HVAC unit was not running at all. Complainant knew Rob Laux, Qualifying Party for Respondent, for over 20 years and asked him to replace her HVAC unit. Respondent believed the capacitor needed to be replaced; Complainant paid Respondent $370.00 and waited 24 hours to see if the home would cool down. The capacitor repair did not work. Complainant testified that on June 19, 2025, she purchased a brand-new unit from Respondent and they installed the unit. On June 20, 2025, Respondent installed the new unit. On August 15, 2025, Complainant contacted Mr. Laux and informed him that water was dripping from her ceiling fan in the bedroom. Respondent worker, Carlos, went into the attic and informed Complainant that the P-trap was turned upside down and the drip pan backed up and spilled down through the ceiling. Within 24 hours, the bedroom ceiling crashed in and a big, wet hole in the ceiling. Complainant testified that Mr. Laux informed her he would take care of the damages, however, Complainant did not hear from Mr. Laux again. Complainant testified that she had no choice but to hire another company to replace the HVAC unit and fix the damage. Complainant paid an additional $2,133.12 for drywall, $368.68 for a new mattress, and $149.84 for a new ceiling fan.
Investigator King testified that due to the emergency nature of the damage and the lack of communication from Respondent, Complainant needed to get the repairs fixed.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on February 25, 2026. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. ROC 170595 was Suspended.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable, and Respondent was deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
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 means “[p]roof which leads the trier of fact to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.”
In this case, the uncontested evidence clearly 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 workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
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. ROC 170595.
It is further 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 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), 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 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, March 17, 2026.
/s/ Nicole Robinson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
c/o Legal Department
1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Enviro Tech Air Conditioning and Heating Inc
4502 E Monte Way
Phoenix, AZ 85044
[email redacted]
Marie Wolf
860 N. McQueen Rd #1161
Chandler, AZ 85225
[email redacted]
Aaron King
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff