Kmart has been ordered to pay Christchurch parents Elle Chrisp and David Dingwall more than $15,000 after play sand bought for their twins was found to contain tremolite asbestos.

The couple spent nine months pursuing Kmart NZ Holdings through the Disputes Tribunal, seeking reimbursement for independent testing and costs incurred after being advised to leave their home.

Chrisp told chrislynchmedia.com the family bought a two kilogram tub of the product for their twins, who mainly used it outside.

However, the material was carried throughout the house on their shoes and clothing.

“I had cleaned it up from pretty much every room in the house, so I knew it had been inside our home as well.”

Chrisp arranged independent testing after Kmart issued a recall notice describing the risk as low.

She paid $150 to have the product collected and examined by a laboratory, despite initially being reassured it was unlikely to test positive.

“The lab saw it under their microscope. They could see the fibres on top of the sand and they phoned the removalist, very concerned.”

The removalist advised the family to leave immediately, taking only the clothes they were wearing, until environmental testing could establish whether asbestos fibres had spread through the house.

Chrisp said the family feared they might have to replace carpets, curtains, clothing, bedding, toys and other soft furnishings. They were also concerned fibres could have entered their ducted heating system.

Testing was carried out on the air and surfaces inside the house.

The family was relieved when no asbestos was detected indoors and they were told they could return home.

However, they could not use the outside area until professional remediation had been completed where the play sand remained visible.

Chrisp said she began questioning Kmart’s description of the risk after learning one of its New Zealand stores had been closed when a container of the product was found in a staff break room.

“They brought in professional remediation and had the whole store decontaminated before reopening. Why was that okay for a Kmart store, yet that sand had been in my home and in my children’s hands?”

She said the couple asked Kmart for evidence supporting its assessment that the product presented a low risk.

“We wanted to believe it was low risk. That is what started the investigation my husband and I went on.”

Chrisp said Kmart did not respond to their request for reimbursement, prompting them to file a claim with the Disputes Tribunal.

She said the tribunal found the product was unsafe, was not of acceptable quality and did not present the low risk described by the company.

The tribunal process meant Kmart was required to respond to the couple’s evidence, she said.

“You could not ignore me anymore. You could not dismiss my claims. You had to answer the questions. That was the best feeling.”

Chrisp, a former lawyer, said people did not need legal training or expensive representation to bring a case before the tribunal.

“It is designed for the everyday Kiwi. Do not ever think that you are not smart enough or capable enough to take a claim there. You do not need to know any fancy lawyer talk or what the law is. You just write it out in plain English.”

She rejected suggestions the couple pursued the case in search of a financial windfall.

Chrisp said the cost of taking the case through a higher court would have made such action impossible for her family.

“Without the Disputes Tribunal, we would not have been able to take action. My husband and I are just everyday Kiwis.”

She said obtaining a public ruling was more important than the money.

“My silence could not be bought. I wanted the truth on the record.”

Chrisp said other families deserved access to the information considered by the tribunal.

“We are busy, hardworking Kiwis who put our trust in other people to do the right thing. Others deserve to know the truth.”