The owner of a Mr Fluffy home who still lives in it and refuses to have an asbestos management plan says she is sick of paying for a problem she didn't create.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Lorraine Carvalho and her husband Leo own Mr Fluffy founder Dirk Jansen's former Lyons home - one of 21 houses that WorkSafe ACT says is non-compliant with legislation requiring an asbestos management plan.
The plans, designed to minimise the risk of further exposure to residents and visitors, last two years and require an assessment from a licensed asbestos assessor.
The inspections can cost homeowners more than $1000, and they are also required to pay for any recommended remediation works and have them completed within six months of the assessment.
Mrs Carvalho said there were "a whole myriad of reasons" she and Mr Carvalho refused to have a management plan.
She believed they had already been through enough, and the home's living areas had been cleared of contamination on several occasions.
"It wasn't our mistake, so why should we have to pay?" Mrs Carvalho said.
"The people who have been the victims are the ones who have to pay.
"To pay [for a management plan] is just paying dead money and making someone rich off your misfortune."
The Carvalhos bought their home in 2003, long after the loose-fill asbestos was installed, and spent $500,000 on renovating and extending it.
The place had already been cleaned in the 1990s and living areas were cleared of asbestos during renovations in 2004.
In July 2014, the couple received a letter from the ACT government telling them their home was a Mr Fluffy house, and another assessment revealed living areas were clear of contamination.
The Carvalhos, who have previously described the ACT government's buyback scheme as a rip-off, are so determined to stay in the house that they even plan to paint it during the spring despite the government's plan to demolish all Mr Fluffy houses by 2020.
"Our biggest angst is that we didn't put the Fluffy there, so I don't think we should have to pay," Mrs Carvalho said.
"It's very comfortable [in the house]. I can live my days out here."
Residents who chose to continue living in Mr Fluffy homes and to not participate in the buyback scheme were required to have an asbestos management plan in place by February 2016.
Seventy-seven homes remain on the ACT Asbestos Response Taskforce's affected residential premises register, and 48 of those are required to have a management plan.
That register is not a public document, and a public list of 1023 properties contaminated by Mr Fluffy loose-fill asbestos does not distinguish between the 77 still affected and the 954 that have been removed from the affected residential premises register after demolition and soil testing.
WorkSafe ACT says it takes compliance with asbestos management plans "very seriously" and continues to work with the owners of the 21 non-compliant and four partially compliant properties to encourage them to co-operate.
A spokesperson for the regulator has said it will consider taking further action against non-compliant homeowners on a case-by-case basis.
"While privacy requirements prevent the publication of non-compliant households, visitors including trade persons can check the public register for loose-fill asbestos properties and at the property can check for relevant signage or ask for a copy of the [asbestos management plan]," the spokesperson said.
