FAQ
Questions about Kay's case
Start with what the documents establish, then check the payment dispute, the businesses’ responses and the questions that remain unresolved.
Record reviewed 14 October 2026. Latest termination notice: 13 October. Latest published QBCC company search and solicitor warning: 12 October. No formal response to the termination notice is published here yet.
01
Checking the evidence
01Can Alex prove or substantiate her claims?
Yes. The published evidence includes the signed agreement, invoices, payment ledger, original emails and dated register searches. Here are some of the key claims and the records supporting them.
What Kay bought: the signed 11 July 2025 agreement identifies Expandify and the $224,003 Complete Supply, Install and Council Approval Package. It establishes the wording the parties signed.
What the payment record shows: the portal ledger lists five invoices as paid, totalling $142,433.02. The contract instalments total $134,401.82; the remaining $8,031.20 is for reports and assessments.
Why the August deadline was challenged: invoice 0278 specifies a 14 August due date while its expected arrival date is 21 August. The agreement ties the instalment to arrival. Those documents show the basis of the early-payment objection without relying only on Alex’s recollection.
The instruction to contact Alex: Alex’s 10 August email directs future correspondence through her because of Kay’s health. Affordable Modular Buildings’ 11 August reply acknowledges the request and says it will be brought to Tim’s attention. The instruction and the team’s acknowledgment are written records. What was said during Tim’s later call remains a separate question.
The licence snapshot: the 12 October QBCC search records an Active company licence and no current nominee. It establishes the recorded position on that date, rather than continuous absence between searches or a finding that particular work was unlawful.
The call records include Kay’s signed account and Alex’s summaries of conversations she participated in. Tim’s published responses are included alongside the family’s account.
02How are conversations presented?
The site includes Alex’s summaries of five conversations she took part in, and Kay’s signed account of her separate call on 11 August. Each record identifies the date and participants.
02
Kay's home and money
03What did Kay actually buy?
On 11 July 2025 Kay signed a $224,003 agreement with Expander Dwellings Pty Ltd, trading as Expandify, for the Peak Complete Supply, Install and Council Approval Package. It covered the dwelling, council approvals and installation, rather than a home for Kay to arrange installation herself.
The signed agreement calls it a “complete supply, install and council approval package”. Expandify’s solicitor later described it as an agreement for the supply and delivery of goods, rather than a building contract. Kay’s solicitor disputes that description. The competing legal positions are recorded here; this site does not decide which is correct.
04How much has Kay paid?
$142,433.02 so far.
| Contract instalments | $134,401.82 |
|---|---|
| Preliminary reports and assessments | $8,031.20 |
| Total paid | $142,433.02 |
The two instalments are 60 per cent of the $224,003 price. The disputed next instalment is $67,200.91. Paid direct, her total paid would be $209,633.93 and contract instalments $201,602.73, the 90 per cent stage, before the final occupation payment.
Under the signed contract, title passes only when the full price is paid. On 31 August Expandify’s solicitor offered earlier title transfer on payment of the next instalment. The record does not establish acceptance or transfer of ownership.
05Where is the home now?
Expandify reported arrival at port on 30 August. The family does not know the home’s current location and it has not been delivered to Kay’s site.
The foundations are installed. On 13 October Expandify terminated the agreement and said it would not deliver the home, intending instead to resell it.
06Has Expandify terminated the contract?
Yes. On 13 October 2026 Expandify’s solicitor issued notice terminating Kay’s 11 July 2025 agreement for alleged non-payment of invoice 0278, for $67,200.91. Kay disputes Expandify’s right to terminate.
The notice relies on the payment breach notice sent on 2 October, which required payment by 12 October. Expandify says it will not deliver the home and intends to resell it. Issuing a termination notice does not establish that its termination was legally valid.
On 12 October Kay’s solicitor warned that Expandify had not remedied the breaches identified on 4 September, still had no nominee, and was seeking payment for work already paid for and/or site work not done. The letter said any purported termination would be treated as repudiation. These are Kay’s solicitor’s positions, not a court ruling.
No formal response from Kay’s solicitor to the 13 October termination notice is published here yet.
07What does Expandify say happens to the money?
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.
The total paid is $142,433.02, including $134,401.82 in contract instalments and $8,031.20 in assessments. The notice does not give an itemised calculation of which payments and deductions it intends to include.
08Has Kay lost all $142,433.02, or been promised a refund?
Neither outcome is established. Kay has paid $142,433.02 and has no delivered home. Expandify’s 13 October notice says it intends to sell the dwelling, deduct its claimed costs and losses, and refund any balance. It does not specify a refund amount or payment date.
The total comprises $134,401.82 in contract instalments and $8,031.20 in reports and assessments. The notice does not itemise which payments it proposes to retain or which deductions it will claim.
Kay’s money is at risk. The record does not establish that all of it has been permanently lost, that a refund has been paid, or that a particular recovery is guaranteed. Kay disputes Expandify’s entitlement to terminate and retain payments.
09Will QBCC insurance automatically cover Kay’s loss?
No automatic insurance recovery is established in this record. A termination notice, an active contractor licence or a QBCC complaint does not by itself establish that Kay has an accepted insurance claim or a guaranteed payout.
QBCC’s non-completion guidance sets eligibility conditions, including particular contractor-default or insolvency circumstances. This website does not determine whether Kay meets those conditions. Her coverage and any claim outcome would need to be confirmed through the relevant insurance process.
03
The pressure to pay
10Are Expandify and Affordable Modular Buildings the same company?
No. Kay’s signed agreement is with Expander Dwellings Pty Ltd, trading as Expandify. Affordable Modular Buildings, was later introduced to assist with installation and project management. It is a separate business.
Tim Austin is associated with Affordable Modular Buildings. Affordable Modular Buildings withdrew before installing Kay’s dwelling. Kay did not buy an Affordable Modular Buildings-manufactured home, and Alex’s complaint does not assess the quality of a completed Affordable Modular Buildings build. It concerns Tim’s conduct during Affordable Modular Buildings’ involvement, including the payment demand and the call to Kay.
A complaint about that conduct is separate from the contractual dispute with Expandify. Affordable Modular Buildings’ objections to the public posts do not establish why Expandify later terminated Kay’s agreement.
11What was Tim Austin’s role with Expandify?
Expandify appointed him. On 1 July 2026 Expandify introduced Tim Austin and Affordable Modular Buildings to customers as its installation and project management partner, and from then on directed Kay’s project through him.
That appointment is not the same as a QBCC nominee, the licensed person responsible for supervising a company’s building work. The register searches show Expandify’s licence with no current nominee, and nothing in the record makes Tim Austin that person.
On 12 August, the day after he phoned Kay, he said Affordable Modular Buildings was out. Expandify confirmed on 19 August that order management had returned to it.
12Why did Tim Austin call Kay after being asked to contact Alex instead?
The question is why Tim called Kay after Alex instructed Affordable Modular Buildings to direct future contact to her because of Kay’s health. His Facebook response explains what he wanted to discuss, but does not address that instruction.
-
The offered call: On 10 August, Tim queried the QBCC notice and requested a call. Alex confirmed the dispute concerned Expandify, not Tim or Affordable Modular Buildings, and agreed to speak if he proposed a time.
-
The written payment dispute: After Tim forwarded the invoice, Alex explained the contract’s arrival milestone and wrote: “Kay is not refusing to meet her payment obligations.” She disputed the early deadline and asked that correspondence come to her because of Kay’s health.
-
The acknowledgment and call: Affordable Modular Buildings acknowledged both issues at 11:10am on 11 August. Kay says Tim called that afternoon, initially saying he needed Alex’s number, then discussing the project and payment. Her signed account describes pressure and distress.
-
Repeated on the phone: In Alex’s 12 August call account, she repeatedly challenged the timing and corrected Tim when he said her email refused payment. His later Facebook response says payment was due on Expandify’s advice. It does not address her objection to paying before arrival.
-
The disputed follow-up: Alex’s next-day account records Tim saying he called and texted her afterwards and offered the records. Alex has no record of either. No records resolving the disagreement are held here.
-
The apology: Tim objects that Alex left his apology claim out of Facebook. Alex says it does not answer the complaint about calling Kay in the first place. The website already included his version. In a clarification relayed by Alex on 29 September, Kay says he did not apologise; her original signed account is unchanged.
The payment dispute and health instruction were in the same email. In Alex’s next-day account, Tim relied on that email to defend the payment demand. His Facebook response also refers to her email, but does not address why he called Kay instead of Alex. He disputes Alex’s account of his conduct.
13Is Expandify going broke?
We don’t know, and this site does not say it is. The following examples explain why we asked. The homepage sets out four statements across Kay’s signed account, Tim’s email and Alex’s conversation summary.
Kay’s signed account of the 11 August call records him saying, in words to that effect, that Expandify could not afford the port, docking or offloading costs, and that if she did not pay early she might not receive her house and could lose the money already paid.
Alex’s account: Tim said he became involved to prevent another business failing. That is his statement, not a finding of insolvency.
“I became involved because I wanted to help get these clients through a difficult situation and get their projects completed so you don’t all potentially lose your money if Expandify can’t continue.”Tim Austin, in writing, 11 August 2026, 3:50pm
Whether he had authority to speak about Expandify’s finances is not established. Kay’s solicitor asked Expandify for evidence it could pay its debts on 12 August. The requested financial records were not supplied. The 16 September reply from its solicitor rejected the suggestion that it was unwilling or unable to complete the agreement, and supplied no financial records. On 31 August Expandify’s solicitor offered to amend the agreement so ownership would transfer on payment of this instalment, rather than after full payment. The record does not establish acceptance of that amendment or transfer of ownership. In his 18 September response, Kay’s solicitor maintained that there was a real risk Expandify would not complete installation and reiterated the trust proposal. These are the parties’ positions; the record does not establish what protection the proposed amendment would provide if Expandify failed to complete.
Missing records do not prove insolvency. They are why Kay asked for the money to be held in trust rather than paid direct.
14She signed a contract. Doesn’t she have to pay?
Kay’s signed agreement has payment obligations. The dispute concerns when the $67,200.91 instalment could be demanded, whether the claim complied with the requirements raised by her solicitor, and what protection there would be before paying more.
In August, the invoice demanded payment by 14 August even though the agreed arrival milestone had not occurred. Alex wrote on 10 August: “Kay is not refusing to meet her payment obligations.” She disputed the early deadline and asked for the invoice to be withdrawn or corrected.
After Expandify reported arrival at port on 30 August, the dispute included paying the full instalment into its solicitor’s trust account under proposed release conditions, rather than paying Expandify directly. The trust proposal was not accepted. An offer to pay into trust is not actual payment or an agreed change to the contract.
Expandify maintained that direct payment was required and terminated for alleged non-payment on 13 October. Kay’s solicitor continued to dispute the payment claim and the entitlement to terminate, including in the 12 October warning. The earlier arrival objection and the later payment safeguards dispute must not be treated as the same issue.
15What is the trust account offer, and how has Expandify responded?
Kay offered the full $67,200.91 instalment into Expandify’s solicitor’s trust account under proposed release conditions linked to delivery and performance. Expandify insisted on payment to its own bank account. The proposal was not accepted, and no deposit into trust is established.
The published 18 September response from Kay’s solicitor repeats the offer and refers to terms provided on 11 September. The detailed 11 September draft terms are not reproduced on this website. The public record establishes the offer and the demand for direct payment; it does not let a reader assess every proposed release condition.
The trust proposal was a proposed safeguard, not an agreed arrangement, a completed payment or a finding that Kay had discharged her payment obligations. On 13 October Expandify issued its termination notice. Kay disputes its entitlement to do so.
16Does Affordable Modular Buildings’ subcontractor role change the family’s complaint?
Kay’s contract was with Expandify. Affordable Modular Buildings withdrew before installing her home. Alex’s complaint concerns Tim’s conduct while Affordable Modular Buildings was involved, including the payment request and contact with Kay after the team’s acknowledgment. It does not assess the quality of an Affordable Modular Buildings build.
In his Facebook response captured on 1 October, Tim described Affordable Modular Buildings as Expandify’s installation subcontractor. He said Expandify advised the progress payment was due and that, when it was not paid, Expandify was not in a position to pay Affordable Modular Buildings for installation. He said Affordable Modular Buildings withdrew after warning Alex. These are his statements, not independently established findings.
Alex’s reply challenged that explanation and asked whether Affordable Modular Buildings would have stayed on the project if the family had paid before the contractual milestone. Tim disputes Alex’s account. His response, her reply and the supporting records appear together on the Affordable Modular Buildings page.
17Did Tim Austin contradict himself?
There are specific discrepancies between Tim’s account and the written records. Other points involve disputed recollections or explanations that could coexist. The comparisons below identify the source for each, rather than treating every difference as proof of a lie.
Payment: Tim’s public response says payment was not being made because Alex had emailed Affordable Modular Buildings saying so. Alex’s 10 August email expressly says “Kay is not refusing to meet her payment obligations” and disputes the early deadline. The invoice was due on 14 August while forecasting arrival on 21 August; the agreement ties the instalment to port arrival. His response does not address the distinction between refusing payment and disputing that deadline.
Building approval: Alex’s 12 August conversation account records Tim saying a response about approval was missing. His 6 August written notification says no action was required. That notice does not identify a task for Kay or Alex to complete. The later statement is recorded in Alex’s account; it is not a written admission by Tim.
Shipping: Alex’s 9 July conversation account records Tim saying the home was already on the water. The carrier tracking shows the first leg departing on 16 July and the onward Qingdao departure on 1 August. The available records do not explain that discrepancy. The statement attributed to Tim comes from Alex’s account.
Withdrawal: Alex’s 12 August account links Tim’s withdrawal explanation to clients continuing with solicitors and the QBCC. His later public response links it to Expandify being unable to pay Affordable Modular Buildings after the customer instalment was not paid. Those reasons could overlap; the records do not conclusively establish which was decisive.
The call and apology: Tim’s public response acknowledges Kay becoming upset and says he apologised. Kay disputes the apology. His response therefore corroborates aspects of the call and distress, while leaving the apology and other disputed details unresolved. It does not answer why he contacted Kay after the written instruction to direct correspondence through Alex.
18Did Tim Austin apologise during the call to Kay?
Whether Tim apologised is disputed. Tim’s public response says he apologised when Kay became upset. In the clarification relayed by Alex on 29 September, Kay says he did not apologise. Her original signed account has not been rewritten.
The website includes Tim’s version. His apology claim does not resolve the separate question of why he contacted Kay after Alex’s written health concerns and instruction that correspondence go through her, which Affordable Modular Buildings’ team had acknowledged.
04
The contract and the QBCC
19Does Kay have a solicitor, and when did they become involved?
Yes. Kay has a solicitor. The first published solicitor letter to Expandify is dated 30 June 2026. It addresses the replacement contract, payment schedule, scope and delays. A follow-up letter was sent on 14 July.
A 12 August letter was addressed to Tim Austin and Expandify after the call to Kay. Later correspondence addressed the nominee position, the trust proposal and termination threats. Kay’s solicitor sent a notice to remedy on 4 September and warned against termination on 12 October.
The family’s solicitor also responded on 7 October to Affordable Modular Buildings’ cease-and-desist letter. These published actions establish representation. They do not mean every private legal advice email is published or that the solicitor has approved every statement on this website.
20Why did Expandify ask Kay to sign another contract after she had paid 60%?
Because it had obtained its QBCC builder licence in January 2026 and said the project now needed a QBCC New Home Construction Contract. By April 2026 Kay had signed the original agreement, paid 60 per cent and waited nine months.
The first proposed contract allowed 241 calendar days from a proposed start of 29 May. A revised version cut that to 97 days. Neither was signed. Kay needed to know what signing would do to the agreement already in place, the money already paid and the work Expandify had already agreed to do, so she engaged a solicitor. His 30 June letter disputed that she was obliged to sign and maintained that Expandify remained responsible under the original agreement. That is her solicitor’s position, not a court ruling.
21Was Expandify licensed when Kay signed?
No. The contracting company, Expander Dwellings Pty Ltd trading as Expandify, obtained its QBCC builder licence on 7 January 2026, almost six months after Kay signed on 11 July 2025.
A licensed installer does not change that. QBCC says a building business operating as a company must transact through a company contractor licence; a director’s or a subcontractor’s licence is not the same thing. Kay’s solicitor’s letter raised unlicensed contracting on that basis. The dates are in the documents; the alleged breach is his position.
The licence is listed as active in the 12 October search. The separate question of the missing nominee is answered next.
22Expandify is licensed now. Why does the nominee matter?
They are two different things. The licence is the company’s permission to contract for building work. The nominee is the licensed individual who carries technical responsibility for supervising that work being done properly.
A company cannot supervise anything by itself, so Queensland requires a company licensee to have one. Under section 42B of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act, a company must not carry out building work without a nominee. An active licence does not supply a supervisor.
The requirement sits on the company’s building work, not on any one customer’s job. The register does not show Expandify without a supervisor for Kay’s home in particular. It shows no nominee for the company at all.
Kay’s solicitor’s 3 September email states that, assuming Expandify notified QBCC of the nominee’s resignation on 11 August, the protection under s42B(2) would end on 8 September. He requested the previous nominee’s resignation date and replacement details. The notification date remains unconfirmed. The register searches do not establish when the nominee ceased or that the licence was suspended.
23Why did Expandify’s licence searches show no current nominee?
Six QBCC searches, from 11 August to 12 October, list the company licence as Active with no current nominee. These are dated snapshots, not proof of continuous absence between searches. The latest search records one structural direction not complied with, concerning an unidentified property; it is not linked to Kay’s project.
The nominee’s cessation and any replacement details were sought in the correspondence. The 12 October letter says Expandify was not ready or able to lawfully complete the installation.
24Why is Kay’s 30% deposit being questioned?
Because QBCC’s rules limit deposits on domestic building contracts of this size to 5 per cent, or up to 20 per cent where substantial customised offsite work exceeds half the contract value. Kay’s was 30 per cent.
| On signing | 30% |
|---|---|
| When manufacture was complete | 30% |
| On arrival in Australia | 30% |
| When available for occupation | 10% |
Ninety per cent of the price falls before the home is available to live in. Kay’s solicitor’s 30 June letter argued the 20 per cent limit applied and was exceeded. That is his position, not a finding.
25What has the QBCC done?
In Kay’s case, there have been two processes. An offence complaint lodged on 3 August was assessed for investigation; whether an investigation is under way has not been confirmed to the family, and assessment is not a finding that an offence occurred.
An Early Dispute Resolution request lodged on 4 August was closed on 28 August. Its closure does not close the offence complaint.
Separately, the 18 and 28 September company searches record one structural direction marked “not complied”. The reports do not identify the project it concerns or connect it to Kay’s complaint.
26Did involving the QBCC mean work had to stop?
The QBCC’s written acknowledgment did not say work had to stop. It said participation did not automatically result in a building inspection and that a case officer would make contact within four weeks if the request was accepted.
Alex’s account: Tim said work should stop and described a 13-week delay before an inspector became involved. QBCC’s written advice is discussed separately.
27What does the structural direction to rectify mean?
The 12 October QBCC company search lists an active Builder - Open licence, no nominee and one structural direction to rectify not complied with. Earlier September searches recorded the same count and category.
A direction is a formal QBCC order concerning identified work or consequential damage.
The reports do not identify the property, defects or compliance deadline, or connect the direction to Kay’s project. They do not establish that the licence was suspended. Their separate “QBCC Disciplinary Action” field records none.
28Expandify now advertises wholesale supply. What about Kay’s contract?
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 current advertisement does not establish a change or cancellation of her agreement.
05
This website and other customers
29What did Kay and Alex do to try to get the home finished and resolve their concerns?
Before lawyers became involved, Kay and Alex were chasing dates, approvals and shipping information. In April, Alex wrote: “we just want to get Mum into her home as quickly as possible and are keen to work through this together”.
By June, Alex was challenging changing schedules while still helping progress the approval paperwork. The first published solicitor letter followed on 30 June, proposing safeguards to get the home finished.
In August, Alex disputed a payment deadline before port arrival. The family later offered the $67,200.91 instalment into the other side’s solicitor’s trust account on proposed release terms. Expandify wanted direct payment. The proposal was not accepted; no payment into trust is established.
The September and October posts followed these efforts. The correspondence shows how requests to work together became firmer as dates changed and concerns remained unresolved.
30Why go public?
Kay paid $142,433.02 and still has no home she can move into. The family had already pursued answers through project emails, a solicitor and QBCC processes before the September and October posts published here.
Alex shares the record with Kay’s authority so readers can check the documents, the businesses’ responses and the family’s account. Disputed claims are identified as disputed.
31Did Alex’s Facebook posts cause Expandify to terminate Kay’s contract?
The record does not establish that the posts caused the termination. Expandify’s 13 October notice gives alleged non-payment of the $67,200.91 instalment as its reason. That stated reason is separate from whether Expandify was legally entitled to terminate.
The payment and delivery dispute was already recorded in June and August. Expandify’s solicitor threatened termination on 16 September. The 2 October payment notice required payment by 12 October and stated an intention to terminate on 13 October.
The publications also became a point of conflict: Affordable Modular Buildings’ solicitors sent a cease-and-desist letter and Expandify’s solicitors urged that posts stop. Those communications show objections to publicity. They do not prove that publicity was the deciding reason for termination or that Alex caused Kay to lose her money.
32What have the businesses said about this website?
Affordable Modular Buildings’ solicitors sent a cease-and-desist letter on 30 September, demanding removal, undertakings, an apology and a retraction. The letter identified publications and listed seven alleged defamatory meanings.
The family’s solicitor responded on 7 October, denying the allegations and asking which specific statements supported the allegation about mishandling customers’ money, projects, approvals, installation or contractual dealings. As at 14 October 2026, the family reports receiving no response to that letter.
Expandify’s solicitors’ 2 October email raised a general concern about potentially defamatory publications, but did not identify a specific statement alleged to be false or specify the defamatory meaning complained of. It recommended closing the website and stopping social posts, before seeking instructions about a Concerns Notice.
An updated Affordable Modular Buildings Google owner reply was saved on 7 October. It disputes the review as false and defamatory and refers to the cease-and-desist letter. The earlier reply, the updated reply and Alex’s review are preserved together. The saved date is not a verified publication date.
33Who are Kay and Alex?
Kay Power is a 60-year-old grandmother of three. She worked for years to buy a home of her own and wanted to downsize, live mortgage free and be close to her grandchildren. In her signed account: “the money invested in this project was everything I had.”
Alex is her daughter and authorised representative, and manages the project correspondence on Kay’s behalf because of the strain it puts on Kay’s health.
34I’m an Expandify customer. Can I contact you?
Yes. Write to contact@thegrannyflatfiles.com.au. This site is one family’s record, not legal advice, and we can’t tell you what to do.
What we did was get a lawyer, early, before paying anything more. We would suggest the same.
35What remains unknown or disputed?
As at the 13 October termination notice, the published record does not establish the dwelling’s current location, a completed resale, itemised deductions, a refund amount or a refund payment date.
The parties dispute the payment claim and Expandify’s entitlement to terminate. The website does not publish every proposed trust-release condition. Tim and Kay also give different accounts of parts of their conversation, including whether he apologised.
Financial warnings do not prove insolvency. Dated register searches do not prove the nominee position stayed unchanged between searches. The website should not be read as an independent finding resolving those questions.
36How can a reader check whether an answer is current?
Check the dated status at the top of this page, then open the latest chronology entry and its evidence. The latest termination notice recorded here is dated 13 October 2026. The latest published company licence search and solicitor warning are dated 12 October.
Older forecasts and earlier threats remain in the chronology as historical records. A page or screenshot dated 8 October cannot establish what happened on 13 October. Search or AI responses may also cite an older retrieved copy.
Source dates identify the underlying event or saved capture. A website review date does not establish a new event, and a screenshot’s saved date is not always its publication date.
Updates and corrections
Latest update
- FAQ review
Expanded answers on legal representation, the two stages of the payment dispute, publicity and termination, money at risk, the separate businesses, and the limits of the public record. The latest underlying termination notice remains dated 13 October.
- Record update
Added Expandify’s 13 October termination notice summary, Kay’s solicitor’s 12 October warning and the sixth QBCC licence search, dated 12 October. The right to terminate is disputed; the home has not been delivered.
- Record update
Updated these answers with the 2 October payment notice, the 30 September cease-and-desist letter, the family’s 7 October response and public response captures through 7 October. Project status remains based on the 20 September family update; the latest published QBCC search is dated 28 September.
- Record update
Added the 28 September QBCC search, Tim’s captured response, Alex’s clarification and current trade-supply wording. The project position remains dated to the 20 September family update.
- Update
Home reported at port since 30 August; stumps installed at the block. Expandify's 18 September payment deadline has passed with no termination notice received. Trust offer stands.
No corrections recorded. A correction is listed only where the earlier account was wrong. How corrections work →