Several lawyers have confirmed the contract's clauses prevent a buyer from making a claim against the ACT government or the contractors doing the demolition should there be any concerns about the veracity of the clean up.

After recent allegations of theft from homes and safety concerns raised by the public, Mr Fluffy homeowners worry that after the billion-dollar buyback scheme they'll be left without a leg to stand on legally.

ACT Law Society Property Committee chair John Chamberlain said despite a plan to remove records of block contamination from the Conveyancing Enquiry Register the government was not giving any legal assurances as to the level of the remediation done.

"The effect of the clauses is the ACT government gives no warranty to the condition of the soil and whether there is any contamination still in it," he said.

"There is also an indemnity to effectively remove any remedy for a Mr Fluffy buyer that purchased the property from the ACT government if there still is contamination in the land."

Former Mr Fluffy homeowners Chris and Christina Pilkington have re-purchased their block but said the contract they had to sign was "atrocious".

Principal at Velocity Conveyancing Group, Andrew Satsias, acted for the couple and questioned the ACT government's solicitors, Meyer Vandenberg Lawyers, about the effect of the clause spelling out the predicament it leaves buyers in.

"The entire purpose of the government buyback was to eradicate the dangers of loose fill asbestos from the site and provide relevant certificates from the Asbestos Taskforce and Certificates of Occupancy and Use are attached to the contract advising that this has taken place," he wrote.

"To exclude reliance on the very documents giving rise to the grant of the land would be inequitable and contrary to the purpose of the scheme."

An ACT Asbestos Taskforce spokeswoman said the sales contracts were "like any property purchase or transaction where a buyer is able to make their own enquiries prior to purchase".

"Supporting documents around the soil testing/validation is available to prospective buyers," she said.

"The remediation on the footprint of the house demolished is comprehensive and through the auction process a high level of confidence [in this] has been demonstrated."

Negotiations went down to the wire for the Pilkingtons.

Lawyers advised them due to the terms of the sale the soil validation and other documents would have no clout legally and they were restricted in accessing the site making it almost impossible to conduct "their own enquiries"

"If we didn't sign they were going to sell our land at auction," Mrs Pilkington said.

"It has been David and Goliath from the start, and there has never been any oversight. To participate in the scheme we had to sign over our legal rights, and the repurchase contract is similarly one-sided."

The Pilkingtons are just a fortnight away from getting back the land they were forced to leave in March 2015.

But before they can construct a new home they have to stump up a further $25,000 to prepare the soil for rebuilding.

"We were told in line with the Environmental Protection Act 1997 the block remediations required the soil to be removed to a depth determined by testing undertaken by an asbestos assessors and that clean soil would be brought to the site and stabilised by civil contractors," Mrs Pilkington said.

"That hasn't happened, maybe because it was too expensive, and now we have to bear that cost."

Chris Pilkington said his family was "mortgaged to the hilt" and the numerous changes made by the task force without warning, such as land rent repurchase arrangements, had made it even harder to afford to return.

"There's no accountability and it seems the scheme is far more about property acquisition than compassionate response," he said.

"What's hard to understand is if they're so confident in the process why they won't stand by it legally."

The Pilkingtons are one of two former Mr Fluffy homeowners that have exchanged on their repurchase.

An ACT Taskforce spokeswoman said another four had accepted offers and were working toward exchange and two former Mr Fluffy homeowners had bought other remediated sites at auction.