Tim Austin says Affordable Modular Buildings is withdrawing from Expandify projects

Alex’s summary of the conversation. Statements remain attributed to the participants.

Tim announced Affordable Modular Buildings’ withdrawal. Alex challenged the early payment demand, the call to Kay and the pressure to withdraw regulatory and legal involvement.

Tim Austin says Affordable Modular Buildings is out of Expandify projects

Tim announced AMB’s withdrawal and blamed Alex for continuing the QBCC matter. Alex challenged the early payment demand, the call to Kay and the pressure to withdraw regulatory and legal involvement. Expandify later confirmed AMB’s departure on 19 August. The later payment and trust proposals are in Expandify’s company record.

Alex, Kay's daughter and authorised representative. Tim Austin, Affordable Modular Buildings.

Alex’s summary of the conversation

What happened in this conversation

Alex’s account of the issues discussed, with later comparisons and related written evidence labelled separately.

What Tim Austin said Affordable Modular Buildings was doing:

Tim Austin said Affordable Modular Buildings was considering terminating its contracts of services, was still discussing the position with Expandify that day and the next, and then said Affordable Modular Buildings had completely withdrawn and was out. He said Kay’s build would still be completed by Expandify rather than Affordable Modular Buildings. Expandify later confirmed the departure on 19 August Expandify announces Affordable Modular Buildings’ departure · 19 August. The contract between the two companies, and any withdrawal notice between them, are not in the record.

The call to Kay:

The payment dispute and the request to direct all future correspondence to Alex and not copy Kay were in the same email to Tim Alex’s payment dispute and health instruction · 10 August. Affordable Modular Buildings acknowledged the direction the next morning Affordable Modular Buildings acknowledges Alex’s contact instruction · 11 August. Tim called Kay that afternoon, then directed Alex back to that email when defending the payment issue. Kay’s signed account says he told her he was calling to get Alex’s number Kay & Tim Austin · payment pressure · 11 August signed account. Tim said the next day that he called to find out why the payment would not be made and that he apologised to Kay at the end of the call. Kay’s signed same-day account records no apology; that omission does not establish that none was made. Tim also said he called and texted Alex and offered to send the records; Alex said she had no record of either. No records resolving that dispute are in the record. His explanation that he had 188 clients does not explain why the written instruction was not followed. The record cannot establish what he remembered before the call.

What Tim said Alex had done, and how she answered:

Tim placed Alex among a small group of clients he blamed for the decision. Alex answered that the only issue she had raised with Affordable Modular Buildings was an invoice due before the contractual arrival milestone and issued without a project programme. Tim pointed first to the progress payment; Alex answered that it would be due when the dwelling arrived. He then said a response about the building approval was missing; Alex asked what response had been required. Tim returned to payment and said her email refused it; Alex corrected him that she had disputed when it was due, rather than refusing ever to pay. The exchange then moved into his demand that she trust his expertise. Later, when Tim compared them, Alex said she would never contact his parents against a written health instruction. She said trust was built through accurate records and feedback and challenged how he managed his emotions when speaking to vulnerable customers. Tim later acknowledged that Alex had been badly let down and that the fault was probably not hers. By the end of the call, however, he blamed her for continuing the QBCC matter. Alex answered that each person remained responsible for their own behaviour and communication.

The invoice:

The $67,200.91 invoice was issued before the contractual arrival milestone and was due 12 days before the carrier’s then-estimated Brisbane arrival date [Arrival invoice · 9 August, Carrier tracking · 11 August]. Tim forwarded it 74 minutes after Alex had replied conciliatorily and offered a call, on the same evening QBCC notified both parties of the dispute request lodged for Kay; the invoice itself predated that notification [Alex explains the QBCC dispute · 10 August, Tim’s early payment request · 10 August, QBCC’s written advice]. Tim denied any connection between the payment demand and regulatory involvement. By then Kay had paid two contract instalments totalling $134,401.82, or 60 per cent [Paid deposit invoice · July 2025, Paid Build Complete invoice · October 2025]. Both paid invoices list the complete scope; the October invoice allocates amounts within its 30 per cent total to foundation and building installation, installation management, crane hire and delivery from port. Those allocations do not establish separate payment in full for each item. During the call Tim said the next instalment funded inbound import costs, transport, pickup and onsite work and asked Alex to trust his expertise. He also said he became involved so another business would not go under, described Expandify as having reduced operations to the owner and a very limited budget, and warned that continued pressure could leave clients out of pocket. Kay’s separate signed account records the more explicit warning that Expandify could not afford port costs and might go under Kay & Tim Austin · payment pressure · 11 August signed account. The record holds no company financial records, does not establish insolvency and does not establish whether Tim had reviewed the contract and earlier invoices before directing payment.

The pressure to withdraw the complaint:

Tim asked Alex to stand down Kay’s QBCC complaint and the family’s solicitor as a precondition of work continuing. He said all work should stop, an inspector would become involved after 13 weeks and the project would therefore be delayed. QBCC’s written advice, supplied two days earlier, instead described contact within four weeks if the request was accepted and said participation did not automatically result in an inspection QBCC’s written advice. It does not establish Affordable Modular Buildings’ own policy on pausing work.

Source limitations

Authored account; statements are not independent proof of their underlying facts.