Evidence library · COM-0054

Email Alex to Tim Affordable Modular Buildings: disputes premature payment demand and requests timeline

Source date: 10 Aug 2026 · Email print

Alex’s 10 August email disputes the invoice, asks for a work schedule and directs contact through her because of Kay’s cardiac investigations and stress.

10 August 2026 email disputing the invoice, requesting a program and directing communications through Alex because of Kay's cardiac investigations and stress.

Readable source text

The first email body is transcribed; headers, signature blocks and quoted earlier emails are omitted.

Alex’s email, 10 August 2026 at 9:31 PM

Hi Tim,

I note that this payment demand was sent shortly after you raised the QBCC EDR notification and I responded. It does not address that response.

The signed agreement states that the next 30% payment falls due upon arrival at the intended Australian port. INV-0278 is due on 14 August, despite stating an expected arrival date of 21 August. The carrier’s current estimated arrival date is 26 August. The contractual milestone has therefore not occurred, and we do not accept that the invoice is presently due.

Payment would bring Kay’s total payments to $201,602.73, representing 90% of the contract price, before the dwelling is confirmed to be onshore and without confirmed dates for foundations, delivery, installation, connections, completion or handover.

The payment schedule was expressly disputed in our solicitor’s letter of 30 June 2026, including whether it complies with section 34(1) of Schedule 1B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991. That provision requires progress claims under a regulated contract to be directly related to progress at the building site and proportionate to the value of the relevant work. No physical construction work has commenced at the site. Expandify has not responded to that letter or the subsequent correspondence.

I do not accept any suggestion that non-payment of a premature and disputed invoice is responsible for further delay. To be clear, Kay is not refusing to meet her payment obligations. We dispute the 14 August due date because the agreed arrival milestone has not occurred.

Please withdraw or correct INV-0278 and confirm that it will not be treated as overdue on 14 August.

I had understood AMB was stepping in to remedy the lack of transparency, reliable communication and accountable timelines experienced under Expandify. Demanding payment without providing a single confirmed date from foundations through to handover is an extraordinary way to demonstrate that improvement.

You’ve previously said that you are an Expandify Contractor and were being made their nominee. We have no contract with you or AMB. It is not normal for a subcontractor to send us another company’s invoice, ask for the remittance advice to be sent directly to them, and say they have oversight of where our money goes after it is paid. What exactly is the relationship and arrangement here?

Separately, I am Kay’s authorised representative and manage these matters on her behalf. Kay is undergoing cardiac investigations following significant stress associated with this project. Please direct all future correspondence to me and do not copy Kay, as I do not want this correspondence to exacerbate her current health condition.

Finally, please provide by close of business tomorrow, 11 August 2026, a written project timeline confirming the scheduled dates for foundations, delivery to site, installation, connections, completion and handover.

Regards, Alex

Source limitations

Original communication.