Where it stands
Paid $142,433 · Home not delivered · Contract terminated 13 October · Right to terminate disputed
Six project conversations: Alex’s five summaries and Kay’s signed account of Tim’s 11 August call. Each account is attributed to the person who participated.
Alex, Kay's daughter and authorised representative. Sarah, Expandify (Expander Dwellings Pty Ltd).
Alex’s summary of the conversation
Alex’s account of the issues discussed, with later comparisons and related written evidence labelled separately.
As at 15 April, council had still not granted building approval. Sarah said Expandify had been dealing with approvals since about February; Clayton’s later email identifies the formal certifier information request as dated 20 March Shipping update thread, April to May. Kay had by then paid $134,401.82 in contract instalments (Alex’s round figure on the call was $140,000), and Expandify said the dwelling had been built.
Council was questioning whether the existing septic tank could take the additional dwelling. Sarah confirmed council could require a holding tank or an upgrade, at $18,000 to $20,000. Alex had understood from an earlier assessment that the tank was fine.
Sarah attributed the delay to Middle East fuel supply preventing ships leaving Chinese ports. Alex told Sarah that she had contacted the carrier and challenged that explanation. Sarah offered to obtain further written confirmation from the shipping partner. This records their conversation, not independent carrier verification.
Sarah accepted that the project had exceeded Expandify’s stated 29-week maximum project timeline. The signed contract’s anticipated-delivery field is blank, so the guide is not presented here as a contractual delivery date.
Sarah confirmed the accelerated option would move Kay ahead of other homes in the batch. On the time it would actually save, she corrected herself twice before settling on a possible 14 to 21 days, depending on port arrival and the start date. The construction days could remain the same.
Alex put it repeatedly that construction and a six-figure payment should not have proceeded before council approval. Sarah argued the point at length, relying on complying development. Separately, the certifier’s preliminary assessment, obtained by Expandify two months before the sales agreement was signed, records that both a Building Approval and a Septic System Approval were required Preliminary assessment report. It does not resolve whether manufacture should have waited.
Sarah answered the questions put to her, conceded the timeline point, and undertook to send documents. The difficulties here are with the substance of the answers, not with the conduct of the call.
Alex, Kay's daughter and authorised representative. Clayton, Expandify (Expander Dwellings Pty Ltd). First contact between them.
Alex’s summary of the conversation
Alex’s account of the issues discussed, with later comparisons and related written evidence labelled separately.
In April, Expandify attributed the delay to Middle East fuel supply preventing ships leaving Chinese ports. In June, Clayton added a materially different cause: material declarations mis-recorded against the wrong containers and requiring retesting, plus a $30,000 dispute with the factory over who paid. The June account did not reconcile itself with the April account. The record does not establish whether both affected different periods.
Alex questioned how the amounts already paid related to the existing and proposed payment arrangements and raised concerns about protection of the money. Clayton said he did not know and would refer the questions to Sarah and the company’s solicitor. This exchange does not determine a statutory overpayment.
Clayton said Expandify was disengaging from the septic contractor and did not want him working on its sites, while the septic assessment that gates the building approval was still sitting with that contractor.
Clayton confirmed Kay was now first to be installed off batch 5, because another customer ahead of Kay hit a site delay. In April Sarah had offered that queue position for $26,880.36 Replacement contract proposal.
Clayton outlined the expected sequence: booking that week, foundations in the first week of July, arrival mid-July, two weeks for stage one, two weeks for trades, then certification and Form 21. These were forecasts, rather than confirmed completion dates.
Clayton acknowledged that Expandify was new to the industry.
Clayton said a new contract would have to be signed and that he had not realised Kay had not signed it. Later, on 9 July, Tim told Alex that installation could proceed without another signature Alex & Tim Austin · legal action and contract concerns · 9 July.
Alex, Kay's daughter and authorised representative. Sarah, Expandify (Expander Dwellings Pty Ltd). Tim Austin, Affordable Modular Buildings.
Alex’s summary of the conversation
Alex’s account of the issues discussed, with later comparisons and related written evidence labelled separately.
On this call Tim asked to speak to Kay’s lawyer, said he could see why Alex had taken that path, and discussed agreeing a scope of work with a proper contract. Five days later, he warned Alex that pursuing legal action would hold up the project, although he also suggested retaining the solicitor on the side Alex & Tim Austin · legal action and contract concerns · 9 July. Five weeks after this introductory call, he said having a legal person involved exposed him to risk and asked Alex to pull back her solicitor as a precondition of work continuing Alex & Tim Austin · withdrawal and payment dispute · 12 August.
Sarah confirmed the buildings were still in China waiting for their departure date. On 8 June Clayton had said the booking was being placed that week, with arrival mid-July and foundations in the first week of July. The buildings had not shipped and foundations had not begun; the mid-July arrival forecast was still ahead of the call date.
Sarah’s stated reason was capacity: Tim had a much bigger team that could manage the builds more efficiently than Expandify could at its current size.
Asked directly whether Expandify still needed to be in the conversation, Tim confirmed that it did and described the mechanism as an amendment to the existing contract.
In Alex’s account, Tim referred to 166 active clients and 40 Expandify clients on 4 July, then 21 builds, 22 Expandify clients and 188 total clients in August [Kay & Tim Austin · payment pressure · 11 August signed account, Alex & Tim Austin · withdrawal and payment dispute · 12 August]. The figures may describe different categories at different dates; the record does not establish a like-for-like comparison.
Alex confirmed Kay could no longer stay with Alex’s sister and would be moving in with Alex for the next few months. The timeline had kept changing.
Alex, Kay's daughter and authorised representative. Tim Austin, Affordable Modular Buildings.
Alex’s summary of the conversation
Alex’s account of the issues discussed, with later comparisons and related written evidence labelled separately.
Tim told Alex that pursuing legal action would waste time, energy and money, that he would have to stop work and stop talking to her, and that continuing down that path would hold up the project and make the situation worse. He framed this as friendly advice. Alex felt threatened and pressured to drop the legal action. She experienced the warning about stopping work as an attempt to intimidate her into stepping back from the legal protection she had sought for Kay. Later in the same call, Tim suggested retaining the solicitor on the side and said there was no problem having a conversation.
On 4 July Tim said he could see why Alex had involved a lawyer and proposed a meeting himself. Tim had not called the solicitor as promised. This call was Alex following that up Alex, Sarah Morrison & Tim Austin · partnership and installation · 4 July.
Tim first told Alex the contract did not say what Alex said it said. Alex read the wording to him. He then accepted her point and said Expandify probably should not have used that terminology. The wording discussed appears in the signed agreement Signed sales agreement · 11 July 2025.
Schedule 1 item 4 of the executed Sales Agreement reads "$###### as detailed in accepted build proposal". The placeholder was never replaced. The proposal pages in the same agreement total $224,003, so the price remains ascertainable.
Tim said the contract was with Expandify, not with him or his entity, and presented that distinction as putting him clear of responsibility for the contract. This was his stated position; it does not determine his legal responsibilities.
Tim asked Alex whether the project had approvals.
In Alex’s account, Tim said that 95% of competitors’ Class 1A claims were false. This reports his assertion, not an established fact about those competitors. Expandify had told Alex in April that this dwelling was certified Class 1A. Tim’s general claim does not establish that Kay’s dwelling was non-compliant.
Alex asked whether installation could proceed without signing anything else. Tim confirmed that it could. This differs from the replacement-contract requirement repeated by Clayton on 8 June Alex & Clayton Bielby · shipping, payments and contract · 8 June.
Kay Power and Tim Austin, Affordable Modular Buildings.
Kay’s signed first-hand account · DOC-0005
Account text from both pages, including the basis of recollection and confirmation. Repeated headers and footers are omitted; the signature and other source redactions remain marked.
QBCC EDR | CASE [redacted]
SUPPORTING FIRST-HAND ACCOUNT Telephone contact with Kay Power Direct contact by Tim Austin on 11 August 2026
EDR case: [redacted] Person making this account: Kay Power Authorised representative: Alexandra [surname redacted] Property: [redacted] Date of telephone call: 11 August 2026
Basis of this account. The telephone call was not recorded. This account was prepared on the day of the call and has been reviewed and corrected by me. It records my best recollection. Where I cannot remember the exact words used, I say so.
1. Background
1.1. I am the contracting party for the modular granny flat project at [redacted]. Alexandra [surname redacted] is my authorised representative and has full authority to manage the project and related communications on my behalf.
1.2. During the afternoon of 11 August 2026, I received a telephone call from Tim Austin of Affordable Modular Buildings. Tim said he was calling to obtain Alex's telephone number and told me he would call Alex straight away. During the call, however, he spoke to me at length about the project, AMB's involvement and the next payment.
1.3. I told Tim that the QBCC matter was not about him personally. I explained that it concerned Expandify and QBCC. I cannot now recall his exact response, other than that he indicated the matter affected him as well.
2. What was said during the call
2.1. Tim told me that AMB had taken over 21 builds. He said that four clients had lawyers and were, in his words, 'kicking up a stink'. He said words to the effect that he could 'pull the plug' and, if he did, it would ruin the arrangement for everyone else.
2.2. I tried to explain that the money invested in this project was everything I had and that I was frightened about losing it. Tim repeatedly spoke over me and did not allow me to finish what I was trying to say.
2.3. Each time I tried to explain my position, Tim returned to the same point. I specifically remember him repeatedly saying: 'Don't worry about the past. Past is the past. I'm the future, and I can get your house built.'
2.4. Tim repeatedly said words to the effect that he and AMB were working for free. He linked this to the next payment and said that he needed the payment before he could continue.
2.5. Tim also said words to the effect that Expandify could not afford the port, docking or offloading costs needed to bring the dwelling through the port, and that this was why the next payment needed to be made early.
2.6. My recollection is that Tim conveyed that, if I did not make the payment, I might not receive my house, he or AMB might pull out, Expandify might go under and I could lose the approximately $134,000 already paid. I understood the call as pressure to make the disputed payment early because otherwise my home and the money already paid were at risk. Before this call, I had not been told that Expandify might be unable to meet the port-related costs or continue. Until then, we had been trying to preserve the project and achieve completion rather than seek recovery of the money paid. If this information is accurate, knowing it earlier would have affected decisions about further payments and how to protect my money.
2.7. I did not agree during the call to vary the signed agreement or to make the payment before the agreed contractual milestone.
3. Effect of the call
3.1. By the end of the call I was crying, frightened and panicked. I felt overwhelmed and was struggling to speak. After the call ended, I telephoned Alex while still extremely distressed and struggled to recount what had happened. I was terrified that I might lose both my home and the money I had already paid.
4. Confirmation
4.1. I have reviewed this account and made the corrections I considered necessary. I confirm that it is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
Signature of Kay Power: [redacted] Date: 11/08/2026
Alex, Kay's daughter and authorised representative. Tim Austin, Affordable Modular Buildings.
Alex’s summary of the conversation
Alex’s account of the issues discussed, with later comparisons and related written evidence labelled separately.
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 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.
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 $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.
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.