The full chronology

Pre-contract brochure: listed date. The record lists 20 March 2025 for this brochure. Its contents are verified; the original email establishing when it was sent to Kay is not in the record.

• Build: 45-day build cycles, with build and certification typically around 8 weeks.
• Shipping: four to five weeks.
• Installation: one to three weeks.
• Council: handled "from start to finish, including... handling the submission on your behalf".
• Installation team: "our QBCC licensed installation team".
• Customer promise: "transparency in our processes, pricing, and timelines".

First invoice: $600 for a Preliminary Site Feasibility Report. Kay pays it.

The private certifier's Preliminary Assessment Report, obtained by Expandify, records two required approvals:

• Building approval: yes.
• Septic system approval: yes - "Not connected to the main sewer".

On Expandify's later account:

• A conference call takes place between Kay and two staff members, in which septic is said to have been put outside scope.
• Expandify says a specification sheet was emailed to Kay that day. The version produced in 2026 carried a creation date of 18 May 2026.

Contemporaneous attachment records: Kay writes “Nothing is attached”. The received resend lists two JPEGs; a sender-side screenshot lists a specification-sheet attachment as well. These records differ and do not establish that Kay received the sheet relied on in 2026.

Septic requirements and access to council records. Lauren tells Kay that BAL and septic reports are required before the site assessments. Council declines to release septic records to Expandify because it is not the property owner. Sarah asks the team to obtain the records through Kay and the family, and Lauren passes on that request.

This records both early awareness of the septic requirements and an attempt to obtain the information.

Second invoice: $871.20 for a bushfire (BAL) report. Paid.

• Sarah Morrison, by SMS: "I have spoken to [the septic contractor] and he sees no reason why your tank would not meet the purposes for adding the additional dwelling... This stage is the $6,300. I can arrange for this invoice to be sent today if you are ready to take those next steps."
• The septic contractor: an external plumbing contractor consulted on the tank.
• Kay, eight minutes later: "Ok please send invoice".
• Payment: the $6,560 site-assessment invoice is paid the same day.

Site survey and soil test carried out.

Mum’s expectation at sale: Kay expected the home to ship in December 2025 and be installed in January 2026. This is the family’s account, clarified by Alex, of the timing Mum expected when she bought the home. The signed agreement’s Anticipated Delivery Date field was blank.

Kay signs the Sales Agreement:

• Package: The Peak Complete Supply, Install and Council Approval Package - "the dwelling, complying development council approvals, installation, and everything in between" - $224,003.00.
• Incomplete particulars: six of eleven. Purchase Price and Description of Goods retain $###### placeholders; Exchange Rate, Anticipated Delivery Date, Delivery Address and Special Conditions are blank.
• Refund clause: clause 7.9, the only clause returning all money paid, is calculated from the blank Anticipated Delivery Date.
• Security: clause 14.2 charges Kay's present and after-acquired property in Expandify's favour; clause 14.3 consents to a caveat.

Kay writes the same day: "Have approved and signed. Can I pay $45000 now and rest of the 30% on my house settlement, which should be the 1 August 2025". The record shows from day one that the deposit is funded by the sale of her house.

• Deposit records: the invoice is dated 12 July; the notice in Expandify’s customer portal, Buildertrend, is dated 11 July and requests $67,200.91, due that day. The deposit was subsequently paid; the notice and invoice dates do not establish when each payment cleared. Kay had requested a split payment on 11 July.
• Licence position: Expandify holds no QBCC builder licence at this point. Its licence commences 7 January 2026.

• Status given: Expandify says the frame and structure are complete.
• Work still underway: lining preparation and internal framework checks, electrical layout planning, materials and fixtures being prepared for fit-out, and factory quality checks. Final assembly and comprehensive quality testing are described as later steps.
• Arrival forecast: the batch is expected to arrive at port around January/February 2026, depending on the factory schedule, shipping allocation and quarantine clearance. This is a port-arrival estimate, not an installation date.
• Next payment: "In approx 3 weeks you will receive images and videos of the build in factory. This will trigger your next invoice payment."
• Arrival payment: the invoice "will be issued with the due date approx 1 week prior to port arrival".

Guide supplied: the same email thread attaches the Construction Journey Guide. It gives approximately 20–29 weeks overall, allowing for scheduling, port delays and site conditions. This is guidance supplied after signing, not a completion date inserted into the signed contract.

• 11 November: first dated portal update in the record.
• 3 December: the update visibly shows external factory work continuing.
• Date caution: portal dates may be upload dates rather than camera-capture dates; they do not establish the exact day the photographs were taken.

Bulk email: delays acknowledged, the Raceview display home installation is paused, "keeping our promises and caring for our customers comes first, always".

The licence record shows Expander Dwellings Pty Ltd’s builder licence commenced on 7 January 2026, after the July 2025 contract.

A portal update shows internal fit-out with electrical wiring still hanging. The portal date may be the upload date rather than the date the photograph was taken.

Clayton Bielby apologises for the wrong name and the delays and takes over as installation contact.

The February shipment forecast passes; approval work is also unresolved. The 20 January email forecast shipment in February. The next written schedule, on 12 March, instead gives a 27 March departure. This is an outcome of the earlier forecast, not a separate February shipping update.

Expandify later dates its contact about septic requirements to the end of February and Sarah says it had been dealing with approvals since about February. Those accounts do not establish the date of a formal RFI. Clayton’s 8 May email identifies the certifier’s written information request as 20 March.

New schedule in writing: ship departs China 27 March, installation 4 May, handover 30 May.

Certifier requests four outstanding items. In his later 8 May email, Clayton identifies an information request from the certifier dated 20 March: designated parking on the site plan, Form 15 engineering, Home Warranty Insurance and a septic sufficiency report. He says the first three are within Expandify’s scope.

This is the date of the request as identified in that email, distinct from the company’s account of earlier discussions about septic requirements.

The 27 March departure moves to 13 April. A notice dated 27 March and attributed to OOCL says the scheduled China–Australia departure has been rescheduled to 13 April. It cites staff availability, fuel security and wider conditions. The notice is later supplied to Kay; its attribution has not been independently authenticated.

Alex checks the shipping explanation and replacement contract independently. In the carrier call, customer service says China–Australia services are continuing; it does not check Kay’s specific booking. In the QBCC call, Alex asks about licence timing and the proposed replacement contract and is directed to obtain independent advice.

These enquiries precede the later formal complaints. They do not establish that Kay’s particular shipment was unaffected by disruption.

From Alex’s notes of the call: early April 2026, carrier customer service and QBCC. Alex’s notes date the calls 1 or 2 April.

Order of priorities: Alex’s account is that shipping and approvals came first. Once the family had more confidence about shipping, they returned to the replacement contract and involved a solicitor to protect Kay’s position. The first solicitor’s letter was sent on 30 June.

• Information request: Alex sends Expandify five written questions on approvals and shipping.
• Home Warranty: QBCC cover is issued; premium $1,225.80.

Alex’s account of the 15 April conversation with Sarah Morrison.

• Shipping: Sarah repeats the Middle East explanation. Alex says the carrier told her otherwise. Sarah does not dispute that and offers written confirmation from the shipping partner. No such confirmation is in the record.
• Timeline: Sarah accepts Alex’s concern that the project has exceeded Expandify’s stated maximum timeline.
• Approval and septic: Sarah confirms council is questioning the septic tank, a replacement could cost $18,000 to $20,000, and says approvals had not been a major priority while shipping was delayed.
• Accelerated payment: Sarah explains that $26,880.36 buys queue position ahead of another customer. She estimates potentially 14–21 days saved, depending on port arrival and the start date, while saying the construction days could remain the same.

A revised replacement contract reduces the completion period to 97 days. Expandify’s later account dates an April submission of plans to the septic contractor to 15 April. Alex’s notes of her 29 May call with the septic contractor describe earlier draft work and follow-ups in 2025, then updated plans in April; this was not established as the first contact ever.

Alex chases the promised approval update. A reception call records Alex seeking an overdue response and an update she says Sarah expected by the end of the previous week. Sarah is unavailable; reception offers to pass on a message. A later voicemail again asks for an approval update and callback.

From Alex’s notes of the call: April 2026, Expandify reception and voicemail. The date range reflects Alex’s notes.

Another shipping booking: 13 May departure, 14 June arrival. The booking provides an 8 May wharf-receival target and 13 May departure, with estimated Brisbane arrival on 14 June. On 8 May Clayton confirms that the expected wharf receival will not happen.

The wastewater design remains the immediate approval task following the April submission of plans.

• Expandify follows up with the septic contractor: 5, 11, 13 and 23 May.
• The septic contractor's position: it is waiting for septic-tank data and is short staffed.
• What this window establishes: during this stage, Expandify is the party pursuing the outstanding design information.

“This is a delay on our end.” Clayton confirms that Kay’s home will not reach the wharf as expected that day. He attributes the hold to administrative and logistics items on Expandify’s side, says the home is built and ready, and accepts responsibility.

• Missed reply: he apologises for not answering Alex’s 29 April email.
• Next shipping commitment: a confirmed sailing-date update no later than 30 May.
• Installation order: Kay is third in her batch, behind two other homes.
• Approval commitment: an update on certification items within three business days, including the outstanding Form 18.
• Contract position: he describes the sales agreement and proposed installation contract as covering separate scopes.

The later 18 May email acknowledges that the promised three-business-day update was not delivered.

Questions remain unanswered; Clayton admits missing another update. On 14 May Alex asks for the specification sheet current at signing, the alleged unpaid plumbing invoice and an explanation of conflicting approval accounts. She challenges the assertion that the proposed contract covers a different scope.

On 18 May Clayton acknowledges that he missed the promised three-business-day certification update and did not answer the 14 May questions. He says:

• the parking, engineering and insurance information has now been supplied to the certifier;
• a formal septic report was not produced because the inspector had not been paid, and the invoice went directly to Kay;
• the attached specification sheet is the version applicable when Kay signed;
• a separate building contract “was always required”, but Kay is under no pressure to sign until comfortable.

The invoice and historical specification-sheet claims are subsequently challenged in the May and June records.

• Form issued: the private certifier issues a Form 18 Notice of Engagement addressed to Kay as owner.
• Property ownership: the land is owned by her daughter and son-in-law.

Alex checks the approval and invoice accounts. Sarah reports chasing the Form 18 and tells the certifier to use Alex as the contact. Alex points out that the form names Kay as owner although the property belongs to her daughter and son-in-law.

Alex also reports being told that the plumbing invoice went to Expandify rather than Kay. That intermediate account is superseded on 29 May by the plumber’s direct clarification that no invoice had been issued; it should not be treated as the final invoice position.

• Alex, to three Expandify staff and copying the septic contractor: "it's become pretty clear that there was never an outstanding invoice from the septic contractor holding things up".
• Invoice record: no such invoice has since been produced.
• Design: the septic contractor delivers the final wastewater design.

The contractor’s direct account: in Alex’s notes of the call, the septic contractor's representative checks the job and says no invoice had yet been issued for the job. The call describes draft work and follow-ups to an earlier Expandify contact in 2025, followed by updated plans in April. The existing tank is described as adequate, with changes required to the land-application area. That assessment is not council approval.

Who will lodge: Expandify confirms in writing that it will complete the plumbing-permit submission.

From Alex’s notes of the call: 29 May 2026, the septic contractor. The statement about invoicing is the provider’s account, distinct from Alex’s earlier reported understanding.

Alex goes directly to the freight forwarder. The forwarder describes a check of container contents, held or cancelled bookings and a factory-side problem still awaiting resolution. He also describes earlier wider shipping disruption and confirms that Kay’s dwelling is a real identified order.

His account supports both company-side and external causes at different stages; it does not establish every cause or its duration.

From Alex’s notes of the call: 29 May 2026, freight forwarder. This is the forwarder’s account of the booking history.

• Health and housing acknowledged: "The financial pressure, your health, not being able to stay with your daughter while she prepares for her baby. That is a lot to be carrying."
• Batch position: "All six homes in your batch are in exactly the same position. Not one has left China yet".

Pickup authority and vessel space are still unresolved. The freight forwarder says he is awaiting the go-ahead to collect from the factory as well as shipping space. Alex asks how that fits with the repeated assurances that the home is built and ready.

From Alex’s notes of the call: 3 June 2026, freight forwarder. Alex’s notes distinguish factory pickup authority from the vessel booking.

Alex checks the one-week shipping assurance. Alex tells the freight forwarder that Clayton had said the home would be “on the water within a week”. The forwarder says space is still being sought and describes vessel rollovers; he undertakes to check the booking.

Alex repeats the one-week account in her 16 June email. It is her contemporaneous account of Clayton’s assurance, not an exact quotation attributed to him from the 8 June conversation.

From Alex’s notes of the call: 12 June 2026, freight forwarder. The one-week statement is Alex’s own, repeating what Clayton had told her.

Another proposed programme: 74 days from 9 July. Sarah sets out a 74-day programme for the proposed contract, starting with foundation installation on 9 July and excluding shipping days. She compares the existing agreement, proposed contract and current payment practice, says both contracts have the same payment terms and offers to address Alex’s concerns.

Clayton’s written recap also provides a revised shipping estimate, apologising that the recap was delayed while he was on site. These are proposed dates, not an agreed replacement contract.

• Metadata challenge: the specification sheet produced as the pre-signing version was created 18 May 2026 and refers to QBCC Home Warranty Insurance, which post-dates the licence.
• Records requested: the original spec sheet, the email that sent it.

Sarah Morrison gives Expandify’s account of the earlier conversation.

• Company's account: a 16 May 2025 conference call with Lauren, Clayton and Kay was specifically about the septic system.
• Position asserted: Expandify says Kay was told septic sat outside its scope.

An actual plumbing invoice is issued: the septic contractor sends Kay INV-1575 for $600, saying Expandify directed it to invoice her and that Expandify will lodge the application. Alex forwards it referring to Clayton’s indication that Expandify would pay; Sarah later disputes that commitment. This invoice is distinct from the alleged earlier unpaid invoice said to have held up the report.

• Metadata: "On the spec sheet metadata mixup, that one is on me."
• Attachment: Sarah attaches a file called “Specification Sheet.pdf”. The attachment is byte-for-byte identical to the March 2025 brochure. It contains no septic or wastewater exclusion. That attachment does not establish what Kay received on 16 May 2025.
• Scope: Sarah also relies on clause 15.11 of the signed contract.

Why the family involves a solicitor: after investigating the shipping and approval problems, Alex says they had enough confidence about shipping to turn to the replacement contract. Given the delays, unresolved scope and payment questions, they wanted Kay protected and the issues resolved before arrival and the next payment.

Kay’s solicitor’s letter raises:

• Unlicensed contracting under section 42(1) of the QBCC Act.
• A 30 per cent deposit against a 20 per cent statutory cap under section 33(1)(c).
• Progress claims untethered from progress at the site under section 34.
• Misleading and deceptive conduct under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.

Subsequent correspondence: Kay’s solicitor’s 12 August letter records that the 30 June and 14 July letters had not received a response. The September entries below record the later exchanges between the solicitors.

The letter addresses the proposed replacement contract and the existing supply-and-install scope. These legal allegations are the solicitor’s positions, not findings by a regulator or court.

AMB partnership announced in writing. Expandify announces that Affordable Modular Buildings will support installation and project delivery, while Sarah and Clayton remain involved. The email promises a further introduction, followed by the 4 July call.

Shipping booking revised a second time: estimated arrival 19 August.

Alex asks QBCC about the available complaint routes. The officer distinguishes an offence complaint from Early Dispute Resolution, describes approximately four weeks for EDR contact and says the processes can be pursued separately. The call also refers to Alex’s earlier April enquiry.

This is advice about the processes, not a determination of the contract dispute or an instruction to stop work.

From Alex’s notes of the call: 10 July 2026, QBCC. The EDR timeframe is recorded in the notes.

The solicitor follows up. Kay’s solicitor sends a further letter after the 30 June demand. Its later letter of 12 August expressly records that neither the 30 June nor 14 July letter has received a response.

This is the unanswered legal-correspondence sequence; separate project updates continued during the same period.

• Shipping: Tim Austin says the building is on the water, with estimated port arrival 19 August.
• Plumbing: "the plumbing has been approved".
• Building approval: described as close, but held up by an engineering RFI with the certifier.
• Elapsed time: the plumbing approval arrives roughly 14 months after Expandify's own report said one would be needed.

Weekly updates and a programme promised. Tim’s written communication commitments include weekly updates, milestone/programme information and notices about foundations, installation, services, variations and payments. Alex’s later 10 August email requests a written programme from foundations to handover.

• Authority: Kay appoints Alex as her representative.
• Family-record lodgement date: QBCC offence complaint. The cited 4 August acknowledgement establishes the assessment status, not the precise submission time.
• 4 August status: assessed and placed in a queue pending allocation to an investigator.
• Status caution: this is not a finding that an offence occurred.

• Family-record lodgement date: QBCC Early Dispute Resolution request. The cited 10 August intake email does not independently establish this submission date.
• 10 August intake: QBCC says it will assess suitability and, if accepted, contact the parties within four weeks of lodgement.
• Process: participation does not automatically result in an inspection.

• Tim Austin reports: the building approval has been received - 391 days after the contract was signed.
• His message: "I bet you feel better now :)"
• Evidence held: the notification. On 12 August, the certifier supplied the approved building-approval document set directly to Alex.

The notification asks for no action: Tim’s email says no action is required at this stage. Alex later requests the decision notice and conditions, then obtains the approved set directly from the certifier on 12 August.

Publication source: The published building-approval document is a labelled extract of the decision, conditions and related forms; the complete original remains private.

• Invoice: INV-0278 - $67,200.91, "30% Arrival in Port Progress Payment".
• Dates: due 14 August; the invoice itself says "Expected arrival date is 21st of August".
• Claim terms: framed under the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017, with 12 per cent per annum interest on late payment.
• Effect if paid: Kay would reach $201,602.73 - 90 per cent of the price - before the dwelling reaches Australia.

A call with Alex had already been offered. Tim requested an urgent call at 6:25pm the previous evening. Alex replied at 7:14pm offering to find a suitable time and asking him to propose one.

• 11:10am · AMB’s projects team acknowledges the email. The team identifies the payment milestone and invoice dispute, says the email is going to Tim as urgent, and confirms that the request about future correspondence has been noted and will be brought to his attention.
• Alex follows up. Still waiting for a response, she asks for the approval notice and conditions, referring to the disputed invoice, lack of a foundation date and her earlier offer to speak. The quoted copies show different header times; her text says it is now 2.00pm.
• About 3:10pm · Tim calls Kay, according to Alex’s recollection of the time. Kay’s signed same-day account places the call in the afternoon without an exact time. She says he initially asked for Alex’s number, then spoke at length about the project and payment. She describes pressure to pay early, warnings that she could lose her money, four clients with lawyers “kicking up a stink”, and his statement that he could “pull the plug”.
• Kay’s account of the impact: “By the end of the call I was crying, frightened and panicked... I was terrified that I might lose both my home and the money I had already paid”.
• 3:31pm · Tim emails Alex: “Please call me … we need to talk.” The email follows the call to Kay on the timing Alex recalls.
• 3:50pm · Tim sets out conditions for continued involvement. He says he became involved so customers do not “potentially lose your money if Expandify can’t continue”. He asks Alex to follow his team’s directions, including payments “when due”, or he will reconsider AMB’s involvement.

The contact instruction was already in writing. Alex’s 10 August email disputed early payment and directed future correspondence to her because Kay was undergoing cardiac investigations. AMB acknowledged it before the call.

Nominee search: the QBCC register search dated this day shows an active company licence but no current nominee. It does not give the previous nominee’s departure date or the date QBCC was notified. Those dates and the identity of a replacement are subsequently requested.

Clayton Bielby is the current director in the 11 August extract. Sarah Kay Morrison and Lauren Zita Leidig are previous directors, with recorded cessation dates of 31 March 2026. Lauren’s secretary role also ceased on that date. The complete original is held privately; a redacted officeholder excerpt is published.

• Invoice due: INV-0278 falls due under its own terms.
• Timing: seven days before the arrival date printed on it; twelve days before the carrier's estimate.
• Status: disputed and unpaid.
• Elapsed time: week 57 against a maximum 29-week guide.

Position as at 15 August:

• Paid: $142,433.02, including 60% of the contract price.
• Home and site: the dwelling remained offshore; no foundations or physical construction had begun at the property.
• Contractor: Tim had said AMB was out on 12 August. The family had not yet received written confirmation or advice about who would complete the work.
• Program and payment: no updated programme answering Alex’s 10 August request is identified in the reviewed record; Sarah had supplied a written programme on 16 June; the arrival invoice remained disputed and unpaid.
• Regulator: the offence complaint was queued pending allocation to an investigator; the separate EDR request was in intake.
• Solicitor’s letters: Kay’s solicitor’s 12 August letter recorded that its 30 June and 14 July letters had not received a response.

6:15am, Expandify Accounts: an automated Xero reminder sent to Kay marks the disputed INV-0278 for $67,200.91 as overdue, two days after the invoice's stated due date, and asks for payment as soon as possible.

• Interest warning: the reminder says bills more than seven days overdue will incur "12% interest charged daily". It does not add interest to the displayed $67,200.91 balance.
• Three formulations: the signed agreement says 12 per cent per annum, compounded daily, from the day after a valid due date; the invoice says 12 per cent per annum, calculated daily, once payment is more than seven days overdue; the reminder omits "per annum".
• Dispute remains: Alex's 10 August email said the contractual arrival milestone had not occurred, disputed the due date and asked for the invoice to be withdrawn or corrected. The automated reminder does not address that dispute.
• Physical position: the dwelling remains offshore and no physical construction has begun onsite. The later tracking update appears under 18 August.

The freight forwarder offers reassurance. In Alex’s notes of the call, the forwarder expresses confidence in the freight position and describes the process for moving containers through a quarantine depot before delivery. He also describes control of the containers as a protection.

These are his explanations and assurances, not audited company finances or confirmation that installation will be completed. They sit alongside, rather than erase, the earlier concerns about payment and completion.

From Alex’s notes of the call: 17 August 2026, freight forwarder. The reassurance concerns freight and delivery arrangements.

Carrier tracking update. The capture gives an estimated Brisbane arrival of 30 August, revised from 26 August. This is a port-arrival estimate, not a date for delivery to the property or handover.

AMB no longer involved. Expandify tells Kay that communication and order management have returned to Expandify, effective immediately. It promises a personal order update within seven days. This is the written confirmation missing from the earlier August record.

Kay’s solicitor writes on payment and completion. The open 1 September letter addresses payment timing, nominee details and completion. Kay’s solicitor asks when the previous nominee’s relationship with Expandify ended and when a new nominee will be appointed. It argues that the arrival instalment is due on 7 September, questions storage charges and requests a construction programme and handover date.

Separate regulator enquiry: in a private QBCC call, Alex asks when Expandify’s nominee ceased. The contact-centre officer cannot provide that date. They discuss contacting the EDR officer about reopening the recently closed matter; this call does not establish that it was reopened or that the licence was suspended.

From Alex’s notes of the call: 3 September 2026, QBCC. The entry records the enquiry and its limits, not a licensing finding.

Kay’s solicitor responds on the nominee, the invoice and the delay. At 4:46pm Kay’s solicitor answers on the nominee position, invoice timing and Expandify’s explanation for the delay.

The 28-day calculation: the solicitor’s email identifies 8 September as the potential end of the period, expressly assuming 11 August was when Expandify notified QBCC of its nominee’s resignation. It follows up the 1 September questions, asking when the previous nominee resigned, who Expandify intends to appoint and when. The notification date remains unconfirmed.

Expandify issues a breach notice. Sarah Morrison relies on clauses 5.3 and 12.1, states the invoice was due on 30 August and gives 14 September as the remedy deadline. The notice says Expandify may terminate. Expandify’s solicitor later gives different dates: 7 September for payment and 15 September to remedy. These are the parties’ stated dates; the record does not determine which calculation is legally valid.

Twenty-eight days since our first search showed no current nominee. The 11 August search showed none, and the 4 September search again showed none. Kay’s solicitor had requested the previous nominee’s departure date and the identity and appointment date of a replacement. His 3 September email identified today as the potential end of the 28-day period, assuming Expandify notified QBCC on 11 August; the notification date remained unconfirmed.

Xero invoice-history screenshot. The capture supplied with Expandify’s solicitor’s later email shows INV-0278 for $67,200.91 and an AEST history entry recording a send to Kay on 30 August at 12:04 pm, plus later sends on 1 and 6 September and a reminder on 13 September. It is a sender-side record, not proof of receipt. The visible record-payment form has not been submitted and does not establish payment.

Expandify’s solicitor demands direct payment and threatens termination. The 16 September email required the full instalment to be paid directly to Expandify before delivery and maintained that the company could complete the agreement. Citing a Xero send-history screenshot, it said the invoice had been sent on 30 August, payment was due on 7 September and the remedy period ended on 15 September. It set a final payment deadline of 3 pm on 18 September and threatened termination if payment was not received.

QBCC register: the search again shows no current nominee. The company licence is listed as active.

Kay’s solicitor disputed the invoice history and entitlement to terminate, and reiterated the proposed trust payment in his 18 September response. The send-history screenshot does not establish receipt, and this correspondence records a termination threat rather than an issued notice.

Tim Austin’s response, captured 29 September. Tim disputes Alex’s account as false and potentially defamatory and says he has referred it to his solicitor. His principal response is preserved.

• The call: He says he was explaining the payment and installation position. His response does not address Alex’s instruction to direct future contact to her because of Kay’s health.
• Withdrawal: He says Expandify could not pay AMB for installation after the customer’s progress payment was not made, and that he warned Alex before withdrawing.
• Other unpaid work: He also says Expandify owes AMB for other installation support. The underlying accounts are not held here; this does not establish insolvency.
• Apology disputed: Tim says he apologised. In a separate clarification relayed by Alex today, Kay says he did not. Her original signed account is unchanged.

Alex’s supplied reply explains that her complaint concerns conduct during AMB’s involvement. She acknowledges that other customers can have good experiences.

Compare Tim’s explanations with the dated record, including the reasons for the call, the disputed follow-up and the payment milestone.

Expandify’s website, observed today: It advertises trade supply through partners who deliver and install, and provides an existing-customer warranty/service contact. This does not establish when the wording changed or that Kay’s contract changed. Read the company website.

The letter demanded removal of the publications, undertakings, preservation of records and a response by 4 pm on 7 October. These are allegations and demands, not findings.

Tim defends his account. Alex replies. Tim Austin posted a defence of his conduct and Affordable Modular Buildings’ position on Facebook. Alex responded, challenging his account.

Payment demanded by 12 October. Termination threatened for the 13th. Expandify’s solicitors demand $67,200.91 for invoice 0278. They adopt 18 September as the invoice issue date for this notice while maintaining that an earlier dispatch occurred.

The website and posts challenged. Expandify’s solicitors said they may contain defamatory imputations, urged that the website be closed and public posts stop, and said they would seek instructions before issuing a Concerns Notice. These are their allegations, not findings.

The family’s solicitor refutes the allegations. The response requests further particulars and clarification of AMB’s QBCC licensing position, following an earlier request in August.

Updated Google owner reply saved. It disputes the statements as false and defamatory and refers to the cease-and-desist letter.

The earlier apology and later reply are preserved alongside Alex’s review. This is a capture date, not a verified publication date.

Sixth QBCC search: still no current nominee. The company licence is listed as Active. All six searches, from 11 August to 12 October, show no current nominee. They are dated snapshots, not proof of continuous absence between searches.

One structural direction marked “not complied”. The report does not identify the property or link it to Kay’s project.

Kay’s solicitor warns against termination. The sent open letter says any purported termination would be treated as repudiation. It was sent before the next day’s termination.

The solicitor’s grounds: no nominee, payment sought for work already paid for and/or site work not done, and breaches raised on 4 September still unremedied. These are Kay’s solicitor’s positions.

Expandify terminates Kay’s contract, effective immediately. Its notice relies on alleged non-payment of invoice 0278 for $67,200.91, following the 2 October demand. Kay disputes its entitlement to terminate.

No delivery. Resale and deductions proposed. Expandify says it will sell the home 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.