The former installation contractor
Affordable Modular Buildings
Alex asked AMB to contact her because the stress of the project was affecting Kay’s health. Tim called Kay the next afternoon.
Expandify brought Tim Austin and AMB in to finish Kay’s home. AMB later withdrew.
After Alex published her account of his conduct, Tim called it false and defamatory,
and AMB’s solicitors sent a cease-and-desist letter.
This account includes published documents, participant accounts and disputed legal positions. Check what the records establish.
July 2026 · How AMB became involved
Expandify announced AMB’s appointment in July. Tim offered to work with the family’s solicitor and discussed the scope of Kay’s contract.
Read the July conversations and supporting records
Earlier context · July 2026
First, an offer to work with the family’s solicitor.
These two July accounts trace Tim’s approach to the family’s solicitor. After Expandify announced AMB’s appointment on 1 July, Sarah said its larger team would handle installation. On 4 July, Tim outlined the work he would coordinate and offered a solicitor call on Monday. Alex’s 9 July account records that it had not happened; she was following up.
An offer to speak with the solicitor.
Tim proposed a conversation about the scope and contract.
A warning about pursuing legal action.
Tim warned that pursuing that route would interrupt his involvement. Later, he suggested keeping the solicitor involved on the side and said a conversation was possible.
Alex read him the complete-package contract.
Alex’s account below concerns the 9 July discussion about what Kay’s contract covered. She read the complete supply, installation and council approval wording aloud after Tim questioned the package. He acknowledged it and said he would finish the project. He said installation could proceed without another signature, while still recommending a replacement contract.
10–19 August 2026 · Contact instruction, call, first letter and withdrawal
Alex asks AMB to contact her. Tim calls Kay.
The emails below trace the payment dispute and the instruction to contact Alex because of Kay’s health. AMB acknowledged both. Tim then called Kay, followed by two emails to Alex that afternoon.
10 August · The payment dispute and health instruction
QBCC’s notice prompts a request for a call.
QBCC acknowledges the dispute request at 1:57pm. Tim queries it at 6:25pm. At 7:14pm, Alex explains that the dispute concerns Expandify and offers to speak, asking him to propose a time.
Tim requests prompt payment.
He forwards the $67,200.91 invoice and asks for remittance advice. It demands payment by 14 August while forecasting arrival on 21 August. Tim says the money will go to Expandify, then AMB.
Alex disputes the deadline and says to contact her.
Alex says Kay is not refusing to pay: the arrival milestone has not occurred. She requests a written timeline and directs future correspondence to herself because Kay is undergoing cardiac investigations.
11 August · Acknowledgement, call, then emails
AMB acknowledges; Alex chases a response.
The team acknowledges the payment dispute and contact instruction, promising to refer them to Tim as urgent. Alex then follows up: she is still waiting to hear from him, has no foundation date and asks for the building approval.
Tim calls Kay.
Kay’s signed account says he initially asked for Alex’s number, then discussed the project and payment at length. She describes pressure to pay early and warnings that she could lose her money.
Two emails follow the call.
3:31pm: Tim emails Alex: “Please call me … we need to talk.”
3:50pm: He 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.
“By the end of the call I was crying, frightened and panicked. I felt overwhelmed and was struggling to speak.”
12 August · Alex challenges the call; Kay’s solicitor writes
Alex challenges Tim about the call to Kay.
Alex’s account records her challenging the call to Kay and repeating that she disputed early payment, not payment itself. Tim reiterated that she should pull back QBCC and solicitor involvement, linking that involvement to AMB’s withdrawal.
Kay’s solicitor writes directly to Tim.
Kay’s solicitor wrote directly to Tim, copying Expandify. The letter disputed the early invoice, requested evidence of financial capacity and demanded that Tim cease the conduct described, reserving Kay’s rights against him personally. Its account of the call records Kay’s instructions.
12–19 August · AMB withdraws
AMB’s involvement ends.
In Alex’s account of their 12 August call, Tim said AMB was withdrawing. Expandify confirmed the change on 19 August.
Read the withdrawal accounts and why they matter
Kay’s signed account records Tim saying that four clients with lawyers were “kicking up a stink”. She recalls him saying he could “pull the plug” and that doing so would ruin the arrangement for everyone else.
In Alex’s account of their call the next day, Tim blamed a small group of Expandify clients, including Alex, for AMB’s withdrawal. He linked his position to clients continuing with solicitor and QBCC involvement rather than following his direction, and asked her to pull back both. Alex challenged that demand and said she was disputing early payment, not refusing to pay.
Tim initially described AMB as considering termination, then said it was withdrawing and Expandify would complete the projects using AMB’s support and contacts. In his 29 September response, he said Expandify could not pay AMB for installation after the customer’s payment was not made. These explanations may overlap; they do not establish that the clients caused the withdrawal.
Expandify confirmed AMB’s departure on 19 August. Its project role is distinct from a QBCC nominee appointment, and no agreement between the two companies is held in this record.
Why the warnings still matter
Kay’s solicitor had already raised financial concerns on 30 June. Tim’s subsequent statements about port costs and the company’s ability to continue sharpened the family’s concern about paying more directly. They help explain the proposal to place the full next instalment into Expandify’s solicitor’s trust account. They do not establish that Expandify is insolvent. Current payment demands and completion responsibility remain with Expandify.
Supporting records: shipping, approval and payment
The payment request and where the money would go.
The invoice and email below show the deadline Alex disputed and where Tim said the money would go. The contract tied this instalment to arrival in Australia.
“The funds are still going to Expandify with our oversight and then getting redirected to AMB as your contractor and installation company.”
Updates and building approval
Tim promised weekly updates and programme information on 29 July. Building approval was reported on 6 August, with no action requested at that stage. Alex obtained the approved documents directly from the certifier on 12 August.
The approval-response allegation
Alex’s account: Tim said a response about building approval was missing. Alex asked what response had been required; he did not identify a missing task. His 6 August written notification said no action was required.
What QBCC’s written process said
Tim said regulator involvement meant work should stop and that an inspector would be involved after 13 weeks. The written Early Dispute Resolution advice says that, if accepted, a case officer makes contact within four weeks and participation does not automatically result in a building inspection. A case-officer contact and an inspection are different events; the written process does not support an automatic inspection narrative.
Tim’s later explanation of the payment request
Tim’s Facebook response says Expandify advised that the payment was due and that it would fund installation. Alex had expressly disputed the early deadline in her 10 August email, explaining the contractual arrival milestone and saying Kay was not refusing her payment obligations. AMB’s team acknowledged the dispute; Kay’s solicitor repeated the objection on 12 August.
The contract ties this instalment to arrival at the intended Australian port, including the earliest relevant shipment or container if sent in parts. The invoice’s forecast alone does not establish actual arrival. This concerns the August deadline, before the later payment dispute after arrival.
The shipping position given to Alex.
9 July · Tim’s statement as described by Alex: Alex’s account: Tim said the home was already on the water.
16 July → 1 August · Carrier tracking: The first leg left Xingang on 16 July, one week later. The onward departure from Qingdao was 1 August.
The available accounts do not explain the discrepancy. First-leg departure and departure from China are different stages.
28–29 September 2026 · Saved publications and replies
Alex posts her review and shares her account on Facebook.
- Alex posted a one-star Google review about Tim Austin’s conduct towards Kay and shared her account in Facebook groups. The saved Google review and original owner reply are dated 28 September; the Facebook post was saved on 29 September.
- The original Google owner reply apologised for Kay’s distress and promised to investigate the concerns and improve staff training and oversight. In his Facebook response captured on 29 September, Tim disputed Alex’s statements as false and potentially defamatory.
30 September 2026 · Cease-and-desist
AMB sends a cease-and-desist letter.
- AMB’s solicitors sent a cease-and-desist letter identifying the website, Facebook publications and linked review material, broadly alleging false and defamatory content.
- 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.
1 October 2026 · Facebook exchange
Tim defends his account. Alex responds.
Tim referred to the cease-and-desist letter and defended the payment demand and AMB’s withdrawal. Alex responded, challenging his account and reiterating the instruction to contact her instead of Kay.
Read the saved exchange in order: Alex’s post, Tim’s comment, then Alex’s reply. Links to the supporting records sit beneath Alex’s reply.
Tim’s claims against the evidence
Why did Tim call Kay at all?
Tim’s Facebook response
On Facebook, Tim says he was explaining why installation could not proceed with solicitors involved and payment not being made.
He criticises Alex for omitting his claimed apology: “You left out the part where when your mum got upset and started crying I apologised for upsetting her.”
What the record shows
Tim’s response misses the central question: why did he call Kay after the instruction to deal with Alex? Whether he apologised afterwards is irrelevant to that question.
Alex’s 10 August email explained Kay’s health concerns and directed correspondence to Alex. AMB acknowledged it before Tim called Kay. His apology claim was already on this website; Kay maintains he did not apologise.
Disputing early payment is not refusing to pay.
Tim’s Facebook response
Tim says payment was due on Expandify’s advice. His Facebook response says payment was not being made “because you emailed AMB stating that”.
What the record shows
“Kay is not refusing to meet her payment obligations.”
Alex’s 10 August email supplied the contractual arrival milestone and disputed the 14 August deadline. She followed up on 11 August and, in her account of their 12 August call, repeatedly clarified that she disputed when payment was due.
Whatever Expandify had told Tim, Alex had put the contractual basis for her objection directly to him. His later response does not address that distinction. The August demand is separate from the later trust proposal.
The disputed call and text to Alex.
Tim’s Facebook response
His Facebook response does not address his earlier claim to have called and texted Alex after speaking to Kay.
What the record shows
Alex’s next-day account records Tim saying he had called and texted her, and offering to send the records. Alex said she had no record of either. No records resolving this disagreement are held here.
The Facebook response leaves this part of Alex’s account unanswered.
The reasons for withdrawing.
Tim’s Facebook response
Tim says the solicitors were engaged against Expandify, not AMB. He describes unpaid installation costs and solicitor involvement as preventing work proceeding, and says AMB withdrew because Expandify could not pay after the customer’s payment was not made.
What the record shows
The original dispute concerned Expandify. On 12 August, Kay’s solicitor wrote directly to Tim about his conduct and reserved her rights against him personally. Alex’s account of their call that day also records Tim blaming a small group of clients, including her, and linking withdrawal to continued solicitor and QBCC involvement.
His response omits the later letter about his own conduct and gives a payment explanation for withdrawal. The earlier account also records blame directed at clients pursuing legal and QBCC involvement; those reasons could coexist.
He also says Expandify owes AMB for other work.
Tim’s Facebook response
Tim says AMB has not been paid for other installation support and is seeking advice about it.
What the record shows
In his 11 August email, Tim had warned that customers could lose money if Expandify could not continue. The underlying AMB accounts and payment terms are not held here.
His later account adds context to his August warnings, but does not establish Expandify’s overall financial position or insolvency.
The wider responses
AMB withdrew before installing Kay’s home. Alex acknowledges that other customers can have good experiences; her complaint concerns Tim’s conduct.
The original saved Google reply, labelled “Response from the owner”, promised an investigation and improvements to “staff training and oversight”. But Alex’s complaint concerned owner Tim Austin’s own conduct. That original reply does not explain how his conduct would be investigated or addressed. A later reply, saved on 7 October, disputes the statements as false and defamatory. Read Alex’s Google review and both saved replies →
View on Facebook ↗ · Private group; membership may be required.
7 October 2026 · Response and saved Google update
The family’s solicitor refutes the allegations.
- The family’s solicitor responded on 7 October, refuting the allegations. The family disputes the allegations and stands by the published account of events.
- The response sets out the supporting chronology and requests particulars of the statements alleged to imply that Affordable Modular Buildings mishandled customers’ money, projects or contractual dealings. It also requests clarification of the company’s QBCC licensing position, following the earlier August request.
- An updated Google owner reply, saved on 7 October, also disputes the statements as false and defamatory. Both Google replies are preserved alongside Alex’s review. The capture date identifies the saved version, not necessarily its publication date.
Who is speaking: Alex is Kay’s daughter and authorised representative. These conversations were with Alex. Kay’s signed account of her separate 11 August conversation is identified separately.
Alex’s summaries describe the issues discussed. Later comparisons and related written evidence are labelled separately.
Company information
Company details and sources
Affordable Modular Buildings is a registered business name of Portable Building Group Pty Ltd.
ABN 54 655 549 241 · ACN 655 549 241
ABN Lookup identifies the business entity. The dated licence searches cited on this page record the building-licence position at those dates.