The Granny Flat Files

Contract terminated by Expandify, 13 October 2026

No home.
No $142,433.

Kay is a 60-year-old grandmother of three, south of Brisbane. She sold her house and signed a $224,003 contract with Expandify in July 2025 for, in their words, “the dwelling, council approvals, installation, and everything in between”, so she could live mortgage free next to her grandchildren and step back from her work for her health.

Fifteen months on, the company she trusted with her life savings has unlawfully terminated the contract, her solicitor says. They say they will sell her home to someone else, deduct their costs, and refund what’s left. If there is any.

What she has: steel foundations built to fit her custom-designed home.
A site ready for a home they now say they won’t deliver.

Read the story ↓Meet Kay
Kay’s prepared site and steel foundations, with an illustrated house outline and resale sign reflecting Expandify’s notice.
Kay’s site, October 2026

Latest updates

View chronology →

18 September to 13 October 2026

The termination

  1. 18 Sep

    Kay offers the full $67,200.91 into Expandify’s solicitor’s trust account, released on delivery.

  2. 2 Oct

    Expandify demands it direct by 12 October; says it will terminate on the 13th if unpaid.

  3. 12 Oct

    Kay’s solicitor warns in writing: still no nominee, breaches unremedied, terminate and it will be treated as repudiation.

  4. 13 Oct

    Expandify terminates, effective immediately. Says it will sell the home to another party, deduct its claimed costs and losses, and refund any balance.

Legal correspondence

29 September to 7 October 2026

The defamation threats

  1. 29 Sep

    Tim Austin responds publicly to Alex’s account, calling it false and defamatory.

  2. 30 Sep

    AMB’s solicitors send a cease-and-desist letter demanding removal of the publications.

  3. 1 Oct

    Tim comments on Alex’s post, defending the call to Kay and the early payment demand.

  4. 1 Oct

    Tim says they withdrew because Kay didn’t pay. Alex quotes the emails: she would pay when due, not early. She also confronts his call to Kay and changed explanation for withdrawing.

  5. 7 Oct

    The family’s solicitor responds, refuting the allegations. Nothing has been taken down.

Facebook posts and repliesGoogle review and repliesLegal correspondence

As at 13 October 2026

Still unanswered

  1. Nominee

    Six QBCC searches since 11 August. No current nominee listed to supervise the company’s building work.

  2. Pressure

    Across Kay’s signed account, Tim’s email and Alex’s next-day conversation summary, four warnings in two days about the company continuing and customers losing money.

  3. Solvency

    Directors’ statutory declarations requested in June. Financial evidence requested in August. Neither has been supplied.

  4. Trust

    The full $67,200.91 offered into their solicitor’s trust account. Never accepted.

  5. The home

    To be resold, Expandify says. What price, what deductions, and when Kay sees any refund: none stated.

Six QBCC searchesSolicitor’s requests

Before the timeline

At a glance.

The contract$224,003
Kay’s expectation at saleShip Dec 2025
Install Jan 2026
Paid so far$142,43360% of the contract, plus reports
Demanded, then terminated over$67,200.91Offered into trust. Never accepted.
Where these figures and dates come from

A nominee is the licensed person responsible for supervising a company’s building work. The home-progress facts come from the family’s 20 September update; the termination notice was issued on 13 October, after the open warning of 12 October.

Expandify is the trading name of Expander Dwellings Pty Ltd.

A complete supply, installation and approval package. Signed 11 July 2025.

December 2025 shipment. January 2026 installation. This was the timing Kay expected when she bought the home.

$134,401.82 in contract instalments, plus $8,031.20 for assessments.

Demanded directly before delivery. Kay has proposed payment into the solicitor’s trust account.

The contract price comes from the signed proposal (Contract documents). The payments are supported by Invoices and payments and Invoices and payments and the assessment records.

The December shipment and January installation expectation is the family’s account of what Kay expected at sale, clarified by Alex. The signed agreement’s anticipated delivery field was blank.

Separately, Expandify’s solicitor later stated an original batch delivery window of 10 December 2025 to 25 January 2026 (Legal correspondence). That later account does not replace the shipment and installation timing Kay expected. Expandify’s later guide described a process of about 20–29 weeks (Sales materials).

The open 18 September response repeats the trust offer (Legal correspondence).

The family

Kay & Alex

Kay is the buyer; Alex, her daughter, took over in April 2026.

The contracted company

Expandify

Sarah Morrison and Clayton Bielby were directors when Kay bought the complete package. Expandify terminated on 13 October 2026.

Installation

AMB · Tim Austin

Affordable Modular Buildings, owned by Tim Austin, joined in July and withdrew in August.

Latest position

Contract terminated. Foundations installed. Home not delivered.

Expandify terminated on 13 October. It says it will not deliver the home and intends to resell it, deduct claimed costs and losses, and refund any balance. Kay’s solicitor disputes its right to terminate.

Key dates

  1. Contract signed; Kay expected December shipping and January installation.
  2. “Build Complete” instalment paid; the invoice said “almost ready”.
  3. Directors’ declarations requested in June, financial evidence in August. Neither supplied.
  4. Six searches list no nominee. Tim’s financial warnings prompt concern.
  5. The full $67,200.91 offered into their solicitor’s trust account, released on delivery. Never accepted.
  6. Direct payment demanded by 12 October, termination threatened for the 13th.
  7. Kay’s solicitor warns: no nominee, breaches unremedied, any termination will be treated as repudiation.
  8. Expandify terminates. Says it will resell the home and refund any balance after claimed deductions.
Open timeline
JUL 2025 – OCT 2026Open an entry’s context for supporting detail
  1. JUL 2025
    Contract & payment

    Kay signs for a complete home.

    Signed 11 July 2025 · $67,200.91 deposit invoiced in July; subsequently paid

    Kay bought the complete package expecting the home to ship in December 2025 and be installed in January 2026. She sold her house to fund a home beside her family.

    Delivery expectationShip December 2025 · Install January 2026Kay’s expectation at the time of sale, as described in the family’s account.
    Read context & sources

    This is Kay’s expectation when she bought the home, clarified by Alex. The signed agreement’s anticipated delivery field was blank. Kay’s October correspondence separately recorded that she had been told “hopefully finished by Christmas”. Expandify’s solicitor later described the original batch delivery window as 10 December 2025 to 25 January 2026. Those accounts refer to different wording and milestones; neither substitutes for Kay’s stated expectation of December shipment and January installation.

    Source references
    Alex’s clarification of Kay’s expectation at sale; Signed agreement · Contract documents; Deposit record · Invoices and payments; October correspondence · Project correspondence; Expandify’s solicitor’s 4 September email · Legal correspondence

  2. OCT 2025
    Contract & payment

    “Build Complete.” Kay pays the next instalment.

    Paid 22 October 2025 · $67,200.91 · 60% of the contract now paid

    The invoice said the home was “almost ready”. Written confirmation of completion came 90 days after this payment.

    Delivery expectationLate January / early FebruaryCompletion estimate in Sarah’s 8 October reply.
    Read context & sources

    The deposit record shows $67,200.91 paid, but the invoice date does not establish when each payment cleared; Kay had requested a split payment. By the October payment, the two contract instalments totalled $134,401.82, or 60% of the contract price. The invoice wording and January confirmation do not establish the exact date manufacture was completed.

    Source references
    Build Complete invoice and payment record · Invoices and payments; October update · Project correspondence

  3. 20 JAN 2026
    Delivery update

    Written confirmation: “Your home has been completed.”

    Expandify said shipping would be in February, with installation in late March or April.

    Delivery expectationLate March / AprilInstallation forecast in the 20 January email.
    Read context & sources

    This confirmation came 90 days after the October payment. It confirms what Expandify said on 20 January; it does not prove the home was completed that day.

    Source references
    Completion and shipping email · Project correspondence

  4. 12 MAR 2026
    Delivery update

    A written programme gives another finish date.

    Expandify’s programme now put handover on 30 May.

    Delivery expectation30 MayHandover date in the written programme.
    Read context & sources

    This was a handover date, rather than a shipping or port-arrival estimate. Keeping those milestones separate matters when comparing the updates.

    Source references
    Written programme · Project correspondence

  5. 1 APR 2026
    The family’s response

    Another delay. A replacement contract. Alex takes over.

    1 April 2026 · Additional $26,880.36 proposed for the optional accelerated pathway

    Kay had been waiting patiently. By now she was exhausted and devastated, and her GP had flagged stress-related health concerns. Then came another delay, a replacement contract and an option to pay more for an accelerated installation.

    Read context & sources

    That was when Alex took over. Her first priority was to establish whether the home would reach Australia and what was happening with the approvals. The family was not confident about either. The extra $26,880.36 was an optional accelerated installation pathway, not a compulsory charge to continue at the original price. Alex describes the personal and health context in this account.

    Source references
    Delay, replacement contract and accelerated option email · Contract documents; Alex’s account

  6. JUN 2026
    The family’s response

    First, shipping and approvals. Then, protecting Kay’s contract.

    Once Alex had more confidence about shipping, she turned to the replacement contract. Given the history, she involved a solicitor to protect Kay. The first letter went to Expandify on 30 June.

    Delivery expectationAround mid-AugustApproximate timing from the 8 June discussion, also described in Alex’s 16 June email: mid-July arrival, then two to four weeks to installation and handover.
    Delivery expectation14–18 SeptemberThe 16 June schedule was described as “only an example”, subject to weather and labour.
    Read context & sources

    The letter raised the replacement contract, payment schedule, scope and delays. Alex wanted these issues resolved well before the home arrived and another payment was due. The two June forecasts are shown with their original qualifications.

    Source references
    Alex’s call summary · Alex’s call accounts; Example programme · Project correspondence; Kay’s solicitor’s letter · Legal correspondence

  7. JUL 2026
    The family’s response

    AMB joins the project. The legal questions remain unanswered.

    Tim Austin initially proposed speaking with Kay’s solicitor, then discouraged pursuing the legal route. Kay’s solicitor followed up with Expandify on 14 July. By 12 August, both legal letters remained unanswered, although project updates continued.

    Read context & sources

    Alex’s notes also record that AMB’s representative later said Kay’s solicitor could remain involved on the side. Project updates continued during this period. The issue was the lack of answers to the legal letters, rather than a complete stop in communication. Kay’s solicitor’s 12 August letter recorded that the 30 June and 14 July letters remained unanswered.

    Source references
    Alex’s call summaries · Alex’s call accounts and Alex’s call accounts; Follow-up letters · Legal correspondence and Legal correspondence

  8. 10–11 AUG 2026
    Contract & payment

    QBCC is notified. A demand follows that evening. Then a call to Kay.

    Invoice dated 9 August · $67,200.91 demanded · Due 14 August · Disputed and unpaid

    AMB’s Tim Austin questioned the family’s QBCC involvement, then forwarded a payment demand that evening. Alex challenged the early due date and asked that contact come through her because of Kay’s health. AMB acknowledged that instruction. Alex recalls Tim calling Kay at about 3:10pm the next day, before his 3:31pm and 3:50pm emails to her.

    The invoice was dated the day before the QBCC notification. Its payment deadline preceded the home’s arrival.

    Read context & sources

    The demand was sent at 8:28 pm, 74 minutes after Alex’s reply explaining the unresolved issues. The invoice itself was dated 9 August, before the QBCC notification, and was due on 14 August. Expandify had previously described billing ahead of port arrival. This sequence does not establish that the complaint caused the invoice to be created. After AMB’s 11:10am acknowledgement, Alex followed up while waiting for a response. Her recollection places Kay’s call at about 3:10pm. Tim emailed “Please call me” at 3:31pm, then set out conditions for continued involvement at 3:50pm. Kay’s signed account dates the call to the afternoon and describes pressure to pay and her distress.

    Source references
    Email sequence · Project correspondence–Project correspondence; Arrival invoice · Invoices and payments; Kay’s signed account · Kay’s account of the call; Project correspondence; Project correspondence

  9. 11 AUG 2026
    Licensing question

    The licence search shows no current nominee.

    The QBCC register showed Expandify’s company licence as active, but no current nominee. A nominee is the individual who holds the relevant technical qualifications for a licensed company.

    Read context & sources

    This is the date of the register search. It does not identify when the previous nominee left or when QBCC was notified. Kay’s solicitor subsequently sought those dates and the identity of a replacement.

    Source references
    QBCC register search dated 11 August · QBCC licence searches; Kay’s solicitor’s 3 September email · Legal correspondence

  10. LATE AUG 2026
    The family’s response

    Engagement resumes as the shipment approaches.

    Ship arrived 30 August · Solicitor’s email 31 August · $67,200.91 sought

    By late August, engagement had resumed and foundations were being arranged. On 31 August, Expandify’s solicitor reported the home had arrived at port the previous day and sought the next instalment. Kay’s solicitor’s first letter had been sent 62 days earlier.

    Read context & sources

    The late-August records show renewed engagement before the 31 August email. That email is the dated substantive response in this reviewed sequence, not necessarily the first contact of any kind with their solicitor. Alex had tried to resolve the contract and payment issues well before arrival.

    Source references
    Late-August correspondence · Project correspondence–Project correspondence; Expandify’s solicitor’s email · Legal correspondence

  11. 8–18 SEP 2026
    Licensing question

    The 28-day mark passes. Later searches still show no nominee.

    11 August → 18 September · 38 days · Four searches show no current nominee

    The first search showed no current nominee on 11 August. Searches on 4, 16 and 18 September also showed none. By the last search, 38 days had passed, and the family’s requests for the previous nominee’s departure date and replacement details remained unanswered.

    The company licence was still listed as active. The searches do not establish when the nominee left or establish uninterrupted absence between search dates.

    Read context, excerpts & sources

    Expandify’s solicitor said a new nominee was being secured and maintained that the company could lawfully undertake foundation preparation in the meantime. Kay’s solicitor disputed that position.

    Incoming correspondence summary · 31 August 2026 · Legal correspondence

    The 28-day mark from the first search was 8 September. Kay’s solicitor separately identified that date as the potential end of the statutory period, assuming QBCC was notified on 11 August; the notification date was not confirmed. On 31 August, Expandify’s solicitor said a new nominee was being secured and maintained preparatory work could lawfully proceed meanwhile. Kay’s solicitor disputed that position. The subsequent register searches still showed no current nominee.

    Source references
    Register searches · QBCC licence searches (11 August), QBCC licence searches (4 September), QBCC licence searches (16 September), QBCC licence searches (18 September); Open correspondence · Legal correspondence, Legal correspondence and Legal correspondence

  12. 23 SEP 2026
    September position · before termination

    Money offered into trust. Direct payment demanded. No agreement reached.

    Trust offer reiterated 18 September · Full $67,200.91 instalment offered, not paid

    • PaymentAt that September point, the trust proposal had not been accepted and direct payment was demanded.
    • NomineeDeparture and notification dates, and replacement details, were unresolved at that point.
    • TerminationThreatened in September. Issued on 13 October; the family disputes the right to terminate.
    Read context, excerpts & sources

    Kay has offered the full next instalment into Expandify’s solicitor’s trust account on proposed terms. No agreed arrangement is recorded. The nominee questions remain unresolved, and Expandify has threatened termination.

    Expandify’s solicitor required the instalment to be paid directly to the company before delivery.

    Incoming correspondence summary · 16 September 2026 · Legal correspondence

    The 18 September response reiterates the full-instalment trust offer. The 16 September incoming email demands direct payment and threatens termination; it also rejects the suggestion that Expandify is unwilling or unable to complete. Kay’s solicitor disputes the right to terminate. No actual termination notice had been received at that September point; the 13 October notice appears below. The detailed 11 September draft terms are not reproduced here. On 4 September, Expandify’s solicitor estimated completion around 30 November, on conditions that remained disputed.

    Source references
    Open correspondence of 16 and 18 September · Legal correspondence; Nominee register search · QBCC licence searches; 4 September timetable · Legal correspondence

  13. 12 OCT 2026

    Sixth search: still no nominee. A written warning follows.

    The company licence remains Active with no current nominee listed. At 4:46pm, Kay’s solicitor warns that any purported termination will be treated as repudiation.

    QBCC licence searchesLegal correspondence
  14. 13 OCT 2026

    Expandify terminates the contract.

    At 10:08am, Expandify issues notice effective immediately. It says it will not deliver the home, intends to resell it and will deduct claimed costs and losses before any refund. Its entitlement to terminate is disputed.

    Legal correspondence

View the full chronology →

A closer look

That’s the summary.
Here’s what happened at the key moments.

The sections that follow look more closely at the early payment demand, the call to Kay, the nominee questions and the safeguards Kay proposed, with the supporting correspondence and notes.

First: why her solicitor disputes the termination.

Kay’s solicitor’s position, in four documents

Four rules anyone would call fair. Her solicitor says Expandify broke all four.

You can’t bill for a job you’re not allowed to do.

Kay’s solicitor’s position: Expandify could not carry out building work without a nominee and was demanding payment for site work still not done.

QBCC licence searchesLegal correspondence

You can’t demand payment for work already paid for or site work not done.

Kay’s solicitor’s position: the instalment sought payment for work already paid for and/or site work not yet completed.

Legal correspondenceInvoices and payments

You can’t terminate someone for breach while ignoring your own.

Kay’s solicitor served a notice to remedy on 4 September and said in the 12 October warning that the breaches remained unremedied.

Legal correspondence

They were told in writing the day before. They did it anyway.

Kay’s solicitor warned on 12 October that a purported termination would be treated as repudiation. Expandify’s 13 October notice stated termination was effective immediately. Its entitlement is disputed.

Legal correspondence

Her health, in writing. Acknowledged in writing. Put at risk anyway.

Alex told Tim Austin that Kay was undergoing cardiac investigations following project stress and asked for all future correspondence to come to her.He phoned Kay the next afternoon.

He said he was calling for Alex’s number, then spoke over Kay as she tried to explain that the money was everything she had,
and told her she could lose it if she did not pay early. She ended the call in tears.

Read for yourselfKay & Tim Austin · payment pressure · 11 August signed accountAlex & Tim Austin · withdrawal and payment dispute · 12 AugustKay’s solicitor’s letter to Tim · 12 August

  1. Alex replies to Tim’s QBCC query

    Tim has asked for an urgent call. Alex agrees to speak and asks him to propose a time. She also makes clear who the dispute concerns:

    “The contract is with Expander Dwellings Pty Ltd. I didn’t nominate you or Affordable Modular Buildings as the respondent, so I can’t explain how you were included in QBCC’s correspondence.”
    Project correspondence

  2. Tim Austin, Affordable Modular Buildings

    Tim forwards Expandify’s invoice 74 minutes after Alex’s reply, and 6 hours 31 minutes after QBCC’s notification. The invoice itself was dated the previous day.

    “Please make this payment promptly and send me a payment remittance to my email.”
    Project correspondence

  3. Alex, Kay’s daughter and authorised representative

    Alex explains the contractual arrival milestone and writes: “Kay is not refusing to meet her payment obligations.” She disputes the early deadline. In the same email:

    “Kay is undergoing cardiac investigations following significant stress associated with this project. Please direct all future correspondence to me and do not copy Kay.”
    Project correspondence

  4. Affordable Modular Buildings projects team

    AMB’s projects team acknowledges the payment milestone and invoice dispute, says the email will go to Tim as urgent, and confirms the correspondence request:

    “I've also noted your request regarding future correspondence and will ensure this is brought to Tim's attention.”
    Project correspondence

  5. Alex follows up while waiting for Tim

    Alex asks for a substantive response and a copy of the building approval. The quoted copies show different times for this follow-up; its text says:

    “It is now 2.00 pm and I have still heard nothing from Tim, despite his request last night that I call him urgently and my response offering to speak today if he could suggest a time.”
    Project correspondence

  6. Tim Austin phones Kay. Her signed account follows.

    Alex recalls the call at about 3:10pm, before Tim’s two afternoon emails to her. Kay’s signed account dates it to that afternoon and describes the pressure to pay. In her own words:

    “…if I did not make the payment, I might not receive my house, he or AMB might pull out, Expandify might go under and I could lose the approximately $134,000 already paid.”
    Kay’s account of the call

  7. Tim emails Alex after the call to Kay

    Tim’s reply asks Alex to call him. The earlier payment dispute, contact instruction and AMB’s acknowledgement appear in the quoted chain below it.

    “Please call me … we need to talk.”
    Project correspondence

  8. Tim links continued involvement to payments and directions

    Tim says customers could lose money if Expandify cannot continue. He asks Alex to follow his team’s directions, including payments “when due”, or he will reconsider AMB’s involvement.

    “If you are not comfortable allowing AMB to manage the project in that manner, then I will need to reconsider AMB's continued involvement and our contractual arrangement with Expandify in relation to your project.”
    Project correspondence

  9. Tim Austin, in Alex’s account

    Alex challenged the call to Kay and repeatedly clarified that she disputed early payment. When Tim said her email refused payment, she corrected him. On why he had called Kay:

    Tim said his client workload made it difficult to remember individual circumstances. He said he apologised to Kay.

    Alex’s call accounts

  10. Kay’s solicitor, to Tim Austin and Expandify

    The letter records the threat, calls his behaviour retaliatory, demands evidence that Expandify can pay its debts, and demands that he immediately cease and desist, reserving Kay’s rights against him personally. On the call itself:

    “Your conduct in threatening our client that she will not receive her home and lose any money already paid to Expandify if she does not pay the Invoice, even though Expandify is not currently entitled to issue the same, amounts to unconscionable conduct.”
    Legal correspondence

Alex’s account of the next day’s conversation

Tim blamed Alex for continuing the QBCC matter.

Alex’s summary of the 12 August conversation with Tim Austin Alex’s call accounts

Read Alex’s account of the exchange

  • Payment timing: Tim placed Alex among a small group of clients he blamed for the decision. Alex answered that she had disputed an invoice due before the contractual arrival milestone and issued without a project programme, rather than refusing ever to pay.

  • Building approval: Tim said a response was missing. Alex asked what response had been required.

  • Trust and conduct: Tim asked her to trust his expertise. Alex said trust depended on accurate records and feedback, and challenged his treatment of Kay.

  • Responsibility: Tim acknowledged the difficulties Alex had faced and at one point said the fault was probably not hers, but later blamed her for continuing the QBCC matter. Alex answered that each person remained responsible for their behaviour and communication, and that she would never contact his parents as he had contacted Kay.

The full sequence, with every document

The blame was about Alex keeping the QBCC matter open. On the same call, Tim Austin said Affordable Modular Buildings was out. Expandify confirmed the change on 19 August. The record holds no reply to the letter.

Alex’s call accountsProject correspondence
Read more about Affordable Modular Buildings →

The financial concern, in their words

Tim warned about Expandify continuing and customers losing their money. Four financial warnings in two days.

Four statements about Expandify’s finances in two days, then what Kay’s solicitor did with them.

Once to Kay by phone, once in writing, twice in Alex’s account of their conversation. Kay’s solicitor then asked three times for proof it could pay. No financial records came back.

  1. Phone call to Kay11 August, afternoonKay’s signed account
  2. In writing11 August, 3:50pmEmail to Alex
  3. Alex’s conversation summary12 AugustTo Alex
  4. Alex’s conversation summary12 AugustTo Alex
  1. Phone call to Kay11 August, afternoon · Kay’s signed account
    Her signed same-day account records him saying, in words to that effect, that Expandify “could not afford the port, docking or offloading costs” and that this was why the next payment had to be made early, and that it “might go under”.
    Kay’s account of the call
  2. In writing11 August, 3:50pm · email to Alex
    “…so you don’t all potentially lose your money if Expandify can’t continue.”
    Project correspondence
  3. Alex’s conversation summary12 August

    Alex’s account: Tim said AMB became involved to prevent another business failing.

    He described Expandify operating with a reduced team and a limited budget.

  4. Alex’s conversation summary12 August

    Alex’s account: Tim warned that continued pressure could leave clients out of pocket.

  5. What her solicitor did with themJune to September · requests for financial evidence

    In June, Kay’s solicitor requested directors’ statutory declarations that the company could pay its debts. In August, the solicitor requested financial evidence. No declarations or financial records have been supplied in the reviewed correspondence.

    Legal correspondence
“The money invested in this project was everything I had.”Kay Power, signed account
Kay’s account of the call

Protection offered. Terminated instead.

Kay offered to pay the full instalment into trust. Expandify terminated instead.

The full amount was offered into Expandify’s solicitor’s trust account, released on delivery. No agreement or deposit was established.

The contract, and where the money is

$224,003 contract price, in four instalments

Delivery to site and installation happen after this point

  1. Deposit$67,200.91Invoiced the day she signed. Paid July 2025.
  2. Build complete$67,200.91Paid 22 October 2025, on an invoice that called the build “almost ready”.
  3. On arrival$67,200.91The instalment in dispute. Demanded direct, before delivery.
  4. On handoverHandover never reached.
$142,433Paid so far$134,401.82 on the contract, plus $8,031.20 of assessments. The proceeds of the house Kay sold.
$67,200.91Demanded, then terminated overThe third instalment, demanded direct before delivery. Expandify terminated on 13 October.
$209,633.93Would have been paid before the home was on siteThe first three instalments, $201,602.73, which is the ninety per cent stage, plus $8,031.20 of assessments. For a home not delivered and not installed.

Kay offered to pay the full instalment into trust, released on delivery. She disputed paying it unprotected, to a company whose own representative told her it might go under.

Contract documentsKay’s account of the callQBCC licence searches

Who will supervise and finish Kay’s home?

Register update · 12 October 2026

On 13 October, Expandify terminated Kay’s contract and says it will not deliver the home. The latest QBCC search lists Expandify’s licence as active, but records two concerns about its building work:

  • No current nominee. All six searches, from 11 August to 12 October, show no nominee listed. A nominee is the licensed person responsible for supervising the company’s building work. The searches are snapshots; they do not establish continuous absence between those dates.
  • One structural direction marked “not complied”. QBCC describes a direction as a formal order to rectify or complete identified work or remedy consequential damage. The 18 September search already showed the same count and category.

The report does not identify the property, defects or deadline for that direction, or link it to Kay’s project. It does not show a suspended licence; the separate disciplinary-action field records none.

QBCC licence searches
View the two register extracts
Page 1 · No current nominee
Page 4 · Structural direction to rectify

Search created 28 September 2026; this is not the order’s issue date. Highlighting supplied with the source. Open either extract to read the full report.

The report’s “structural” category includes defects that may allow water penetration, affect occupant health or safety, structural adequacy, or serviceability and use. These are category definitions; the report does not identify the defect in this direction. The licence condition shown is its existing mutual-recognition condition.

Kay contracted for supply, installation and council approval. These entries leave a practical question: who will supervise and finish the work she has paid for?

Alex put these questions to Clayton on Facebook.

Facebook posts and replies
  1. The registerSix QBCC licence searches, on 11 August, 4 September, 16 September, 18 September, 28 September and 12 October, each show Expandify’s licence active with no current nominee. They are dated snapshots spanning 62 days. They do not establish when the previous nominee ceased, whether one was appointed between searches, or that the licence has been suspended. Kay’s solicitor asked for the cessation date and the replacement on 1 and 3 September. The record holds no answer.
    QBCC licence searchesLegal correspondence
  2. The noticeKay’s solicitor raised the nominee on five occasions before October, then again in the 12 October warning: the 12 August letter asking for the licensing position, the 1 September open letter asking for the previous and replacement nominee details, the 3 September email asking for the previous nominee’s resignation date and the replacement by noon the next day, the 4 September notice to remedy giving 14 days to appoint one, and the 18 September response. The 12 October warning again addresses the absent nominee. Expandify’s solicitor addressed the nominee position on 31 August. No cessation date and no replacement name appears in the record, and the 16 September reply set a final payment deadline instead.
    Legal correspondence
  3. The solicitor’s 28-day calculationKay’s solicitor’s 3 September email states that, assuming Expandify notified QBCC of the nominee’s resignation on 11 August, the protection under s42B(2) would end on 8 September. He requested the previous nominee’s resignation date and replacement details. The notification date remains unconfirmed; the searches do not establish that the licence was suspended.
    Legal correspondenceQBCC licence searches

Kay has paid sixty per cent of the contract price, plus assessments. The home is not on her site. Expandify has now terminated the contract and says it will sell the home to somebody else.

Kay’s offer

Offer reiterated, 18 September

The full amount, paid to their own solicitor.

Kay’s solicitor reiterated an offer to pay the full $67,200.91 instalment into Expandify’s solicitor’s trust account in the 18 September response. No agreement or trust deposit is established.

Legal correspondence
One instalment. Two destinations.$67,200.91

Kay proposed one. Expandify demanded the other.

Expandify’s answer

Termination notice, 13 October

Contract terminated. Home to be resold, Expandify says.

Expandify says it will not deliver the home and intends to sell it to another party, retain payments against its claimed costs and resale losses, and refund any balance. No sale price, itemised deductions, refund amount or payment date is stated.

Legal correspondence
Their own timetable, 4 September

Pay now. Install from about 26 October. Complete about 30 November.

Kay’s solicitor, the same afternoon

The contract “expressly states” it is for the complete supply, install and council approval package. Her solicitor challenged an invoice for work that had not been performed.

Legal correspondence
Expandify’s full record →Affordable Modular Buildings’ record →

What you can do

If you have had dealings with Expandify, we would like to hear from you.

Alex is now in direct contact with seven other Expandify customers or their families.

Some have installed homes with defects or certification concerns; others are waiting for shipping or installation. Their private accounts are not published here.

If you have bought from Expandify, we would like to hear how it went.

  • Do you have a positive experience, with an installed, compliant home at the end of the process?
  • Have you had your home installed but are experiencing issues with defects, certification and compliance?
  • Are you still waiting on your home to be shipped, delivered or installed?

Nothing you send is published. It is for the family’s own decisions about what to do next.

contact@thegrannyflatfiles.com.au

The woman living through this

“I was terrified that I might lose both my home and the money I had already paid.”

Kay Power, 60, in her signed account of the 11 August call.She is undergoing cardiac investigations following significant stress associated with the project.On 13 October Expandify terminated her contract. There is still no home on her site.

Kay’s account of the call
Read the full chronology →Examine the evidence →Meet Kay →