The seller and contracting party
Expandify
Kay paid 60%. Expandify terminated her contract.
Kay sold her house to fund a home beside her grandchildren. She signed for a complete package from Expandify in July 2025 and had paid 60% by October. The delivery dates kept moving. On 13 October 2026, Expandify terminated the contract and said it would resell the home. Kay’s solicitor disputes its right to do so.
This account includes published documents, participant accounts and disputed legal positions. Check what the records establish.
Some incoming solicitor emails are attributed summaries, with originals retained privately.
Termination notice: . Register search and open warning: 12 October. Awaiting the family’s formal response.
Website page updated .
Key documents
- Termination notice summary · 13 October
Read the notice summary and proposed resale, deductions and refund.
- Kay’s solicitor’s warning · 12 October
The open sent letter disputes performance and warns of repudiation.
- Signed sales agreement · 11 July 2025
Read the agreed package, payment stages and delivery wording.
- Paid Build Complete invoice · October 2025
Read the invoice discussed in the payment account.
- Construction Journey guide
Compare the guide’s estimated process with the dated chronology; it is not the signed contract.
- Trust offer · 18 September
Read the published account of the proposed trust arrangement and its terms.
Kay paid “Build Complete”. The invoice said “almost ready”.
“Build Complete”
The label on Kay’s second contract instalment. By then, she had paid 60% of the contract price.
“almost ready”
The invoice said the home was awaiting inspection. Written confirmation of completion followed on 20 January, 90 days after payment. That does not establish the exact completion date.
Then came another $67,200.91 invoice, due seven days before its own forecast arrival date: payment on 14 August, arrival on 21 August.
The contract assurance and the three-column payment table.
1 April
The statement or request
Expandify’s replacement-contract email
“This contract does not vary the terms of our original agreement and does not vary costs for you in anyway.”
15 June
What the record shows
Sarah’s written payment comparison
Her table lists 30% deposit, 30% build complete, 30% arrival in port and 10% handover for both Kay’s original and replacement contracts. The separate “Current Practice” column starts at 10% and adds approval and foundation stages.
In contextThe table supports matching payment stages for Kay’s two contracts. It shows a different current-practice schedule, not that Kay’s replacement contract changed those stages. It does not resolve Alex’s wider objections to the replacement contract.
$67,200.91 requested before arrival.
11 July 2025 → 9 August 2026
The statement or request
The contract trigger and the invoice
“30% of Purchase Price upon Arrival in Australia.” The invoice for $67,200.91 is dated 9 August and was emailed by Tim to Kay and Alex on 10 August, with payment due on 14 August. Paying it would take contract instalments to 90%.
30 August 2026
What the record shows
Arrival confirmed by Expandify’s solicitor
On 31 August, Expandify’s solicitor wrote that the dwelling had arrived at the Australian port on 30 August. The original 14 August due date was 16 days before that arrival.
In contextThe invoice itself had forecast arrival on 21 August, already a week after its original due date. Kay’s solicitor disputed when the arrival instalment became payable. Arrival in Australia is separate from delivery to Kay’s property; the later invoice dates and payment dispute are set out below.
The payments and remaining balance
Kay had paid $134,401.82 in contract instalments: a 30% deposit and a second 30% instalment. Including the earlier feasibility, bushfire and site-assessment invoices, total payments were $142,433.02. Under the $224,003 contract, $89,601.18 remained payable: the disputed $67,200.91 arrival instalment and the final 10 per cent handover instalment. Expandify’s own 15 June table put the balance at $89,601.17.
Compare all six payment stages
- Deposit
Kay’s original and replacement contracts: 30%. Company’s stated current practice: 10%.
- Building approval
Kay’s original and replacement contracts: no separate stage. Company’s stated current practice: 20%.
- Build complete
Kay’s original and replacement contracts: 30%. Company’s stated current practice: 20%.
- Foundations installed
Kay’s original and replacement contracts: no separate stage. Company’s stated current practice: 20%.
- Arrival in port
Kay’s original and replacement contracts: 30%. Company’s stated current practice: 20%.
- Handover
Kay’s original and replacement contracts: 10%. Company’s stated current practice: 10%.
Sarah supplied this comparison on 15 June. Percentages below are instalments at each stage, not cumulative totals. “No separate stage” corresponds to “NA” in her table.
Payments made and the unpaid demand
- 6 May 2025
$600.00 paid: preliminary feasibility report.
- 28 May 2025
$871.20 paid: bushfire report.
- 9 June 2025
$6,560.00 paid: site assessment.
- July 2025 deposit
$67,200.91 paid. The invoice is dated 12 July; it does not establish when the full amount cleared.
- 22 October 2025
$67,200.91 paid: “Build Complete” instalment.
- 9 August 2026 demand
$67,200.91 requested, initially due 14 August. This is not included in payments made.
The October invoice allocates $6,722.84 of that instalment to seven items: building installation $3,300; foundation installation $900; installation management $600; crane hire $481.80; delivery $1,155; cleaning $195; and the certifier’s final visit $91.04. These are 30% slices of the listed components, not their full prices.
What Tim said the payment would fund
In the 12 August call, Tim said the payment funded import costs, transport, pickup and subsequent work. The paid October invoice already allocated part of its instalment to delivery and installation components. Those allocations do not establish how the funds were spent or whether AMB had been paid.
“Completed” in January. Still waiting in September.
Expandify’s solicitor later put the original anticipated delivery window at 10 December 2025 to 25 January 2026. On 20 January, Expandify wrote that the home was completed. The dates that followed moved through March, May and the middle of the year.
On 15 April, Sarah Morrison, whose directorship is recorded as ending on 31 March, corrected January from an arrival date to a shipping date. Alex accepted the distinction and returned to the overdue project. On 8 May, director Clayton Bielby acknowledged administrative and logistics delays on Expandify’s side. The June call supplied another explanation: testing and a roughly $30,000 dispute with the factory.
“Your home is built and it is ready.” Departure came later.
8 May → 8 June
The statement or request
Expandify’s email, then Clayton’s call
8 May, in writing: “Your home is built and it is ready. This is a delay on our end, and we take full responsibility for it.” On 8 June, in Alex’s account, Clayton said the booking was being placed that week.
16 July → 1 August
What the record shows
Carrier tracking
The first leg departed Xingang on 16 July. Onward departure from Qingdao was 1 August. The 16 June programme had already moved expected arrival to 8 August.
In contextThe May email promised a confirmed sailing-date update by 30 May. In June, Clayton described a booking slot as normally about seven days away and forecast mid-July arrival. Being built is distinct from being shipped. The forwarder later described vessel-space constraints and weather disruption at particular stages.
- 15 April
Overdue position conceded; building approval still outstanding.
- 8 May
Clayton accepts a delay on Expandify’s side.
- 16 July / 1 August
Carrier tracking records the first leg from Xingang, then onward departure from Qingdao.
- 6 August
Building approval reported, 391 days after signing.
- 20 September
Family reports arrival in Australia and installed foundations. The dwelling remains undelivered; its present storage location is unconfirmed.
391 days to approval. A new contract along the way.
A complete package.
Supply, installation and council approvals, for $224,003.
Supply and delivery of goods.
Expandify’s solicitor described the agreement this way. Kay’s solicitor disputed that interpretation.
Expandify announced its QBCC licence to customers on 16 January, after Kay had signed and paid 60% of the contract price. On 1 April it requested a replacement contract and offered an accelerated pathway for $26,880.36. Sarah later estimated a possible 14–21 days saved, dependent on arrival and the start date.
Building approval remained outstanding through the April and June calls. Manufacture had proceeded; installation required approval. The septic scope and what Kay had previously been told were disputed. Expandify did follow up the contractor during May. Approval was finally reported on 6 August.
The licence came after the contract and two instalments.
16 January 2026
The statement or request
Expandify’s announcement
“One of the biggest steps forward for us is that Expandify is now officially QBCC licensed.”
July 2025 → January 2026
What the record shows
The contract, payments and licence register
Kay signed on 11 July 2025 and had paid 60% by October. The company’s builder licence commenced on 7 January 2026.
In contextKay’s solicitor questioned the licensing position in the 30 June letter. These dates establish the sequence; the company’s April explanation was that becoming licensed required builds to be formalised under a QBCC contract.
A report described on the call. Updated plans sent the same day.
15 April
The statement or request
Sarah’s account as described by Alex
Alex’s account: Sarah said Expandify had arranged an assessment, after Alex said she had understood the existing tank was suitable.
15 April · 12:52pm
What the record shows
Expandify’s email to the contractor
“Please find attached updated plans for this proposed dwelling. I’ve also included some other photos I have of the system on file.” The email asks what else would help resolve the assessment.
In contextOn 18 May, Clayton said Sarah had referred to a verbal assessment and that a formal written report had not been received. The same-day email does not prove there had been no earlier assessment.
The unpaid-invoice explanation did not match the contractor’s account.
18 May
The statement or request
Expandify’s explanation
An unpaid plumbing invoice had prevented the report.
29 May
What the record shows
The contractor’s account and Alex’s written challenge
The plumber told Alex it had not invoiced anyone. Alex challenged the claimed outstanding invoice in writing.
In contextIn her 29 May call with the contractor, Alex was told that no invoice had been issued. Her written challenge is linked above. Earlier assessment work existed; April was not the start of all work. The separate $600 invoice issued on 17 June is a later document.
Alex tried to resolve it before the next payment was due.
Kay had waited through the delays. When Expandify sent a replacement contract and the $26,880.36 accelerated option, she was exhausted. Alex took over in April. First she pursued the shipping and approval questions: the family needed confidence that the home would arrive and could be installed.
Once those questions were clearer, Alex turned to the replacement contract and involved Kay’s solicitor to protect her position. He wrote on 30 June, then again on 14 July. On 12 August he was still asking for answers to both letters.
Project updates continued during that period. Answers to those legal letters did not. The family had tried to address the contract and payment concerns well before the shipment arrived.
The spec sheet’s creation date matched the day it was sent.
18 May
The statement or request
Clayton’s written assurance, sent as proof that septic sat outside Kay’s package
“I am attaching the correct specification sheet from that time for your records; it was available on our website and was attached in Kay’s proposal prior to signing the sales agreement.”
18 June → 29 June
What the record shows
What the file showed, and what Sarah then conceded
The file’s embedded creation date was 18 May 2026, the day Clayton sent it, and it referred to QBCC insurance Expandify could not offer until it was licensed in January 2026. Sarah first said that was “just how metadata works”. On 29 June she wrote: “On the version Clayton sent it was the wrong file… that one is on me. It doesn’t change our position on septic.” Expandify then stopped relying on the spec sheet and pointed to clause 15.11, “underground works, rocks, soil type”.
In contextKay’s signed contract describes the package as “complying development council approvals, installation and everything in between”. The spec sheet was Expandify’s evidence that septic sat outside that. No version from before Kay signed on 11 July 2025 has been produced. Kay’s solicitor’s 30 June letter records that the document relied on “did not exist at the time the Contract was entered”.
An update promised. An apology ten days later.
8 May
The statement or request
Expandify’s written commitment
“I will be in touch within 3 business days with a progress update on each, and will continue to keep you updated until all are resolved.”
18 May
What the record shows
The subsequent email
Clayton acknowledged missing that update and not answering Alex’s questions.
In contextThe commitment concerned the certification items listed in the email. Clayton also promised an update on the certifier’s engagement notice within the same window.
The attachment history and the company’s explanation
Expandify relied on a specification sheet to support its position that septic was outside the package. After Alex challenged the version and metadata, Sarah acknowledged on 29 June that the current template had been supplied instead of the historical file.
The later attachment was the March 2025 brochure, which does not list a septic exclusion. Expandify also relied on clause 15.11 of the agreement. The scope remains disputed.
The sender-side screenshot and Kay’s received attachment record differ. They do not establish that Kay received the separate specification sheet relied on in 2026. This is not proof that no sheet was ever sent.
2 October: another breach notice and a demand to remove the publications.
- Expandify’s solicitors adopted 18 September as the invoice issue date for this notice, while maintaining that an earlier dispatch had occurred. The notice demands payment of invoice 0278 for $67,200.91 by 12 October and says Expandify intends to terminate on 13 October if payment is not made.
- Expandify’s solicitors said the website and social media posts may contain defamatory imputations. They urged that the website be closed and public posts about the dispute stop, and said they would seek instructions before issuing a Concerns Notice.
Six searches. Still no nominee listed.
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.
View the two register extracts
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.
Expandify terminated. The family disputes its right to do so.
The full $67,200.91 into trust.
Offered into Expandify’s solicitor’s trust account on proposed terms. No deposit or agreed arrangement is established.
Terminated. No delivery.
Expandify says it will resell the home, deduct claimed costs and losses, and refund any balance. Its right to terminate is disputed.
- 13 October 2026: Expandify has terminated Kay’s contract. Right to terminate disputed.
- 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.
- Kay’s solicitor warned on 12 October that Expandify still had no nominee, was seeking payment for work already paid for and/or site work not done, and had not remedied the breaches raised on 4 September. The letter said any purported termination would be treated as repudiation.
Expandify’s current website ↗ · Trade wording and existing-customer service contact observed 29 September. Alex’s Google review ↗
The September correspondence and current position
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. On 16 September Expandify’s solicitor demanded direct payment before delivery, set a final deadline of 3 pm on 18 September and threatened termination. Kay’s solicitor disputed the entitlement to terminate. At that September point no termination notice had been received. The actual 13 October notice is now held.
As at 20 September, the family reports that the home has arrived in Australia and the foundations are installed. Delivery to the property, dwelling installation and a home Kay can occupy remain outstanding. The family does not know whether the containers remain at port or have moved elsewhere.
The conditional September completion proposal
On 4 September, Expandify’s solicitor had offered to endeavour to deliver on 8 September if cleared funds arrived by 4 September, with installation around 26 October and completion around 30 November, subject to its stated conditions. Those were the company’s proposed dates, not unconditional commitments.
Why the invoice dates remain disputed
The original invoice is dated 9 August, was emailed by Tim on 10 August and states a 14 August due date. The later attachment retains the original issue date but changes the due date to 30 August. The 8 September breach notice and 16 September lawyer’s correspondence use different due-date and remedy-period calculations.
Sender-side send logs do not establish receipt in Kay’s mailbox. The 18 September response disputes receipt and the right to terminate. The records establish the different accounts; this page does not decide the legal calculation.
Current advertising and Kay’s agreement
Expandify’s website, checked on 29 September, advertises trade and wholesale supply to builders, developers and distribution partners who deliver and install for their own clients. It also provides a warranty and service contact for existing customers.
Kay’s agreement is for a complete supply, installation and council approval package. The family is asking who will deliver, install and supervise the remaining work. The advertisement did not itself change her agreement. Expandify later issued the 13 October termination notice.
Tim’s further account of AMB’s withdrawal
He described AMB as Expandify’s installation subcontractor, engaged because Expandify had difficulty securing installers. He said Expandify advised the progress payment was due and that, when it was not paid, Expandify was not in a position to pay AMB for installation. He said AMB withdrew after warning Alex.
He also said AMB had not been paid for other installation support. These are Tim’s statements; the underlying AMB accounts and payment terms are not held here. They do not establish Expandify’s overall financial position or insolvency.
Sarah Morrison and Clayton Bielby: their roles in Kay’s project
Sarah Morrison and Clayton Bielby were directors when Kay signed in July 2025. The 11 August 2026 ASIC extract records Clayton as the current director and Sarah as a previous director, with a cessation date of 31 March 2026.
Sarah continued corresponding with the family afterwards about the replacement contract, payment and specifications. Her directorship ending does not remove that involvement from the record.
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.