ALJDEC - Licensing
2025A-09839-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-03-30
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Daniel Leftwich,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
VHI ROOFING, LLC
License No. ROC 346865,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2025A-09839-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 19, 2026
APPEARANCES: Complainant Daniel Leftwich appeared on his own behalf. Collin Cardwell and Ben Sorenson appeared on behalf of Respondent VHI Roofing, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Arlo Houston appeared as a witness.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: None; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record
FINDINGS OF FACT
VHI Roofing, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 346865 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”).
On or about February 26, 2025, Daniel Leftwich (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install a solar system at Complainant’s home. The contract price was $43,500.00.
On or about September 25, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.
The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Arlo Houston. After an October 27, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Houston issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated October 29, 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 Monday, November 17, 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.
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item: 1 - Per contract, incorrect materials installed with solar
inverter.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
Solaredge brand inverter specified in contract and Tesla brand inverter
installed. No verbal agreement or properly executed change order provided by the respondent that specifies the Tesla brand inverter would be installed.
Complaint Item: 3 - Solar system has never produced the right amounts, or even close to the amounts it should.
Investigator’s Observation: Verified.
Purchase and installation agreement specifies for Estimated First Production of 6896 kWh. Total yearly production at time of JSI was 231.1 kWh. System has been energized for approximately 3 months at time of JSI. Total production based on current yearly production rate 924.4 kWh (231.1 x 4 = 924.4 kWh) appears to be approximately 1/7th of the Estimated First Production that is specified in the purchase and installation agreement.
The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:
Complaint Item: 2 - Unused material was not reimbursed but we were
charged and it was taken from job site by contractor.
Investigator’s Observation: Not verified.
No plan, specification, or properly executed change order provided at time of inspection that specifies the complainant would be provided any unused
material. This statement represents a money dispute and not an allegation that implicates poor work that I can inspect and report on.
Complaint Item: 4 - Multiple attempts via phone and email to contact the
contractor directly with no response.
Investigator’s Observation: This statement by the complainant does not
implicate a workmanship issue to inspect or report on.
Complaint Item: 5 - Making payments on a system that the contractor
refuses to correct installation issues enabling it to work.
Investigator’s Observation: This statement by the complainant does not
implicate a workmanship issue to inspect or report on.
Complaint Item: 6 - Technician came once to respond to reported problem without fixing it and left site without notification.
Investigator’s Observation: This statement by the complainant does not
implicate a workmanship issue to inspect or report on.
Complaint Item: 7 - Conveniently the sales rep, Antonio, no longer works for the company.
Investigator’s Observation: This statement by the complainant does not
implicate a workmanship issue to inspect or report on.
Respondent had deactivated its license on or about August 31, 2025. In order to provide Respondent sufficient time to reactivate its license, Investigator Houston extended the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive to December 29, 2025, through the issuance of an Amended Written Directive on November 13, 2025.
On January 15, 2026, Investigator Houston conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Houston’s Compliance Notes state the following:
Compliance Findings:
Complaint Item: 1 - Per contract, incorrect materials installed with solar inverter.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Solaredge brand inverter specified in contract and Tesla brand inverter installed. No verbal agreement or properly executed change order provided by the respondent that specifies the Tesla brand inverter would be installed.
Compliance Observation: This item was not remedied by the Respondent: there was no known agreement between parties to have the correct inverter installed by an appropriately licensed contractor (the Respondent’s CR-11 Electrical license was inactivated by the Respondent prior to the issuance of the Written Directive).
☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item: 3 - Solar system has never produced the right amounts, or even close to the amounts it should.
Investigator’s Initial Observation: Verified.
Purchase and installation agreement specifies for Estimated First Production of 6896 kWh. Total yearly production at time of JSI was 231.1 kWh. System has been energized for approximately 3 months at time of JSI. Total production based on current yearly production rate (231.1 x4 = 924.4 kWh) appears to be approximately 1/7th of the Estimated First Production that is specified in the purchase and installation agreement.
Compliance Observation: This item was not remedied by the Respondent: Purchase and installation agreement specifies for Estimated First Production of 6896 kWh.
Total yearly production at time of CJSI was 345.6 kWh.
System has been energized for approximately 6 months at time of CJSI. Total production based on current yearly production rate (345.6 x4 = 1382.4 kWh) appears to be approximately 1/5th, or 20%, of the Estimated First Production that is specified in the purchase and installation agreement.
☒ NOT CORRECTED
Thereafter, Investigator Houston 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)(2)(b), 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 Houston testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directives and Compliance Notes. Investigator Houston testified that Respondent did not reactivate its license until March 2, 2026, six months after its deactivation, and that Respondent was provided a two-month period within which to comply with the Written Directive, specifically, from October 29, 2025 to December 29, 2025. Investigator Houston explained that reactivating a license “is a quick process,” and that had the license been timely reactivated, Respondent could have achieved compliance with the Written Directive.
Complainant agreed with Investigator Houston’s testimony. Complainant testified that he began experiencing “issues” with the solar system in July 2025, prior to Respondent deactivating its license, and Respondent did not remedy the deficiencies. Complainant asserted that Respondent had ample time to reactivate its license, and that he received no communication from Respondent until the Registrar became involved.
Collin Cardwell, Respondent’s General Manager, testified regarding the timeline of events relevant to the instant matter. Mr. Cardwell testified that the parties actually contracted for the installation of the solar system on September 14, 2024, and thereafter, executed a change order on February 26, 2025, to include windows and a different inverter manufacturer. Due to an administrative error on Respondent’s part, the new inverter manufacturer was not properly changed. The system was installed on June 21, 2025, and activated on July 14, 2025. Approximately two weeks later, Complainant called Respondent regarding his concerns. Respondent dispatched a technician on August 11, 2025, who spoke with Tesla Support, and could not identify the issue. On August 31, 2025, Respondent deactivated its license due to an internal dispute with its Qualifying Party. On December 2, 2025, Respondent submitted an application to the Registrar to reactivate its license, however, it could not meet the extended deadline for compliance with the Written Directive. In December 2025, Respondent submitted updated engineering and a permit application, as well as proof of purchase of the new inverter specified in the parties’ contract/change order. In early January 2026, the Registrar informed Respondent that it could not reactivate its license because its Qualifying Party needed to update its ownership status. After the license was reactivated, Respondent resubmitted the permit application in order to perform the corrective work. However, this occurred after the expiration of the deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, and Complainant was no longer obligated to allow Respondent to perform any work on the project.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 27, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 346865 was first issued on August 3, 2023, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, two 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.”
While the evidence established that Respondent departed from or disregarded plans or specification in a material respect that was prejudicial to Complainant without Complainant’s consent, in regard to the inverter, the Registrar did not charge Respondent with a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a). Instead, the Registrar charged Respondent with a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b), and the evidence failed to establish that Respondent departed from or disregarded a building code. Therefore, Complainant did not establish that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b) as charged.
The evidence 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 Written Directive being issued and acknowledged such. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. The evidence established that Respondent had ample time to reactivate its license and failed to timely do so. 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 346865 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, March 30, 2026.
/s/ Sondra J. Vanella
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
VHI ROOFING, LLC
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Daniel Leftwich
[email redacted]
Arlo Houston
ROC Investigator
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff