Wayne Earnshaw says tenants in the territory should be told upfront whether a house they could rent had been insulated with Mr Fluffy asbestos.

Mr Earnshaw, who moved with his young family from Sydney a few years ago, said he had rented homes in the ACT without being aware of the Mr Fluffy legacy in the city.

Upon learning of the dangerous residual loose-fill asbestos fibres, he submitted a freedom of information request to the ACT government for a list of the homes.

The request was knocked back late last year and the family have just had confirmation through the real estate agent that they are not living in a Mr Fluffy home.

The reasons for the decision are similar to those the government gave after deciding not to allow The Canberra Times access to the list.

The Narrabundah resident said he thought the ACT should follow the lead of Montgomery County in the US state of Maryland concerning the use of lead paint in homes.

Mr Earnshaw, who leased two properties when he was living in the county, said he had received full disclosure of the possibility of lead paint as part of the information pack and residential tenancy contract.

The tenancy agreement also allows tenants to see the results of lead paint tests and the certification status of the home they are choosing to rent.

Mr Earnshaw said renters also had the right to get landlords to fix defects related to the lead paint (chipping paint or dust) that could affect health.

He said this could be repeated in the ACT so renters would be protected.

The Fluffy Owners and Residents' Action Group, formed by Mr Fluffy home owner Brianna Heseltine, has attracted the attention of people renting the remediated homes.

One renter has commented on the site that she was in a Mr Fluffy home but did not think much about it until her son's room was damaged.

The family is now moving out and the mother is scared of cross-contamination but cannot get any information about her situation.

Meanwhile several real estate agents have called for clarity over the issue of disclosure and what information should be provided to potential buyers following a Mr Fluffy information evening.

Luton Properties licensed agent Christine Shaw said a concern was raised during the session that agents could be held liable for what was a grey area in regards to disclosure of the information.

She said under the legislation guiding real estate agents in the ACT, omitting information was just as bad as saying something wrong.

''As agents we have a level of knowledge now about an issue but need guidance from the REIACT (Real Estate Institute of the ACT), the Law Society and ACT government about what we must say to guide consumers,'' Ms Shaw said.

''This has to be tempered with not being alarmist.''

She said she was getting asbestos assessment reports for two houses in Downer to ensure they were safe for the tenants and future buyers.

Ms Shaw said sales contracts could be amended with a tick-a-box option showing an ''asbestos certificate 2014 onwards issued'' on the front page.

And the two-page asbestos information document provided in every sales contract was not relevant and urgently needed updating, she said.

The Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate has rejected an appeal for the list of 1050 houses remediated as part of the Loose Asbestos Insulation Removal Program from 1988 to 1993.

While the workforce capability and governance division deputy director-general, Andrew Kefford, overturned three out of the five original grounds for rejection, he upheld the decision overall.

The documents uphold the decision not to provide the list on the basis ''that to do so could reasonably be expected to cause damage to relations between the territory and the Commonwealth''.

At the time of the remediation work, a memorandum of understanding was signed between the Commonwealth and the territory that would indemnify the ACT against future claims arising from the program.

As reported by The Canberra Times, while the ACT government received funding from the federal government before 2005, it is still seeking compensation of about $2 million for the cost of remediating homes that missed the program.

Mr Kefford said it was demonstrably preferable for negotiations such as those relating to the program and remediation costs to be conducted in confidence and a decision to release the list ''is likely to negatively impact those negotiations''.

The possible unreasonable disclosure of personal information was also upheld as a reason to reject the appeal.