The ACT government has threatened 11 of the remaining Mr Fluffy homeowners with a $15,000 fine if they do not obtain an asbestos contamination report within weeks.
The owners of homes affected by the potentially deadly loose-fill asbestos fibres also face five years in jail and a $225,000 fine if they have work done on their homes without obtaining the report, which is completed by a licensed asbestos assessor and includes a management plan for the property.
WorkSafe ACT has repeatedly said it would consider taking compliance action on a case-by-case basis, but last Thursday, commissioner Greg Jones clearly laid out the government's new stance in a letter to the 11 remaining homeowners who have not obtained a report.
Mr Jones told the homeowners that if they had not made "reasonably practical steps" to obtain a contamination report by July 18, they would be issued an improvement notice, giving them another 14 days to comply.
"Should you not comply with the improvement notice you will be in breach of Section 107 of the Dangerous Substances Act 2004," Mr Jones wrote in the letter, obtained by The Canberra Times.
"A breach of an improvement notice is a serious offence which can be referred for prosecution and can result in a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units ($15,000)."
The letter went on to say that affected homeowners who had work undertaken on their homes without a contamination report and plan in place could be in breach of Section 43 of the legislation.
"This provision relates to compliance with a safety duty where a person is exposed to a substantial risk of death or serious harm," Mr Jones wrote.
"Failure to comply with this regulatory requirement is also a serious offence and can result in a maximum penalty of 1500 penalty units ($225,000), imprisonment for 5 years or both."
Mr Fluffy homeowner Lorraine Carvalho has not obtained an asbestos contamination report.
She has previously said her Lyons home was cleaned in the 1990s and the living areas subsequently cleared of contamination by tests in 2004 and 2014.
Mrs Carvalho said the government's threat of legal action would not make her change her mind about paying for the report WorkSafe was demanding.
She said she would write to the government to outline her thoughts on the matter.
"We have no complaint with them wanting a management plan, but if they want it, they can pay for it," Mrs Carvalho said.
"We didn't cause this issue and we've paid enough for it already."
Asbestos contamination reports must be renewed every two years and require a licensed asbestos assessor to carry out an inspection.
Each inspection can cost homeowners more than $1000, and homeowners also have to foot the bill for any remediation works included in the management plan that forms part of the report.
Mr Jones told The Canberra Times WorkSafe viewed the issue as a matter of community safety.
"Given it's now two years of very close, active engagement with the residents, including visits, phone calls and six letters, I've decided we need to outline in more detail what some of the consequences are," he said.
"This is about community safety. I'm thinking of visitors to the house, tradespeople or plumbers who might need to access the house, and even emergency services.
"This is all about protecting the community."
Mr Jones said a WorkSafe inspector would shortly contact the non-compliant homeowners to start another round of "consultation and engagement".
He said the homeowners were responsible for the fees licensed asbestos assessors charged to complete the report.
"As the regulator, I've got no powers to either pay for or waive a fee from a private sector agency," he said.
WorkSafe figures show there are 39 remaining properties that require asbestos contamination reports and plans. There are 27 fully compliant and 11 non-compliant. The other is in the process of becoming fully compliant.
The government is yet to determine how it will deal with Mr Fluffy homeowners who have refused its buyback and demolition offer.
June 30 next year had previously been described as the last possible date for homeowners to surrender their leases, but the government signalled for the first time this month that it may consider working with the homeowners who are refusing to leave in order to allow them to remain in their properties beyond that date.