ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09094-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-04
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Doug Beard,
COMPLAINANT.
v.
Ugly Pools Arizona Inc.
dba We Fix Ugly Pools,
License No. ROC 275609,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-09094-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 28, 2026
APPEARANCES: Complainant failed to appear. Respondent failed to appear. ROC Investigator did not appear.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: NONE
FINDINGS OF FACT
Ugly Pools Arizona Inc. dba We Fix Ugly Pools (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 275609, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar or ROC) on January 6, 2012.
On or about September 19, 2025, the Registrar received a Licensed Complaint Form (Complaint) against Respondent. The Complaint indicated that Respondent had abandoned the project. Complainant had paid $66,859.20 to Respondent.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Jeremy Rosenthal (Investigator).
On October 9, 2025, Investigator conducted a Jobsite Inspection and took multiple documenting the status of the project.
On October 9, 2025, Investigator issued a Written Directive for Respondent to complete the specified corrective work by November 7, 2025. In pertinent part, the Directive stated as follows:
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 4 - Contractor won't provide a copy of the permit they were contracted to obtain with City of Chandler
Investigator’s Observation: Although a copy of the GAS PERMIT was on site and received a passing final inspection, the Complainant indicated that the Authority Having Jurisdiction was on site prior to the Investigator's arrival and indicated not only was a permit for the hot tub required, but a permit had not been obtained. In the contract documents, it shows the Respondent was to obtain and necessary permits for the installation and construction of the hot tub. Respondent shall take necessary steps to obtain the proper permit and complete a final inspection with the Authority Having Jurisdiction as expeditiously as possible.
Governing Rule: Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)
On November 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of:
Charge :1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)
Departure from or disregard of: (b)A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another.
Charge :2 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 written directive shall set forth the time within which the contractor is to complete the remedial action. The time permitted for compliance shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of issuance of the directive. A license shall not be revoked or suspended nor shall any other penalty be imposed for a violation of this paragraph until after a hearing has been held.
Respondent filed its Answer to the Citation to the ROC on December 2, 2025. In its Answer, Respondent acknowledged the permitting had been an unresolved issue and that it remained committed to full compliance on the project.
The Registrar subsequently referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent State agency, for an evidentiary hearing and issued a Notice of Hearing.
Following a continuance request, the matter was continued and the parties were provided with a continued hearing date, a virtual hearing link, and telephone numbers for the parties’ participation.
On the date and at the time set for the continued hearing, neither Complainant nor Respondent appeared through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Neither Complainant nor Respondent requested that the hearing be continued. Neither party presented any evidence regarding the matter.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s ROC License record on May 4, 2026. Respondent’s ROC License 275609 is currently active, and there are two open cases and three settled or resolved cases.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The copy of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to Respondent at its address and email address of record was reasonable. The same address and others, as found within the administrative record, were subsequently utilized by OAH to communicate with Respondent. The parties are deemed to have received notice of the hearing and of the GOOGLE link regarding 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 ‘proof which leads the [trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.””
Having failed to appear and present any evidence with regard to the Complaint and cited alleged violations of contacting statutes, Complainant has failed to demonstrate any alleged violation of the Registrar’s statutes that would result in a recommendation for discipline on Respondent’s ROC license at this time.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Complainant’s Complaint be dismissed, that no discipline be imposed on Respondent’s License No. 275609 pursuant to Case 2025-09094, and that Case 2025-09094 be closed.
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, May 4, 2026.
/s/ Kay Abramsohn
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by e-mail to:
Tom Cole
Registrar of Contractors
Ugly Pools Arizona Inc.
DBA: We Fix Ugly Pools
[email redacted]
Doug Beard
[email redacted]
Jeremy Rosenthal
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff