Dog’s Birthday Video Costs Tenants $3000 in Rental Dispute

A Novel Zealand couple has been ordered to pay over $3,500 after a Facebook video revealed they had a dog, despite telling their landlords they only owned cats. The Tenancy Tribunal ruling, released this month, too cited a severely unclean property as contributing to the financial penalty.

Terry Tata and Natashia Wilson rented a property from David and Elizabeth Briscoe since 2020, with an agreement permitting a cat but specifically excluding a dog. According to the tribunal decision, the Briscoes became suspicious after noticing a decline in the property’s cleanliness during a late 2024 inspection. They had initially approved a cat, but suspected a dog was being hidden during inspections.

The turning point came when Elizabeth Briscoe received a text message from Wilson in January 2025, stating she would “have Rocky at work.” When questioned, Wilson claimed “Rocky” was their cat and was being taken to the veterinarian. However, the landlords discovered a public video on Tata’s Facebook page celebrating Rocky’s first birthday. The video, featuring photos of the dog inside the house, definitively identified Rocky as a canine. The post read, “Ra whanau e kuri happy 1 year my ROCKY.”

Beyond the undisclosed pet, the tribunal heard detailed accounts of the property’s deteriorating condition. When the tenancy ended in 2025, Wilson and Tata asserted they had left the house in “excellent clean order.” The Briscoes vehemently disagreed, describing a state of significant disrepair and filth. They detailed urine stains and a pervasive odor throughout the house, necessitating carpet replacement. The tribunal heard evidence of damage to walls, doors and window furnishings.

The extent of the uncleanliness was described in detail. Cat biscuits, litter, and feces were found under the washing machine and dryer. The wall in the downstairs bathroom was stained yellow with urine, and toilets were covered in feces. Bathroom drawers were “filthy, full of hair, dirt and grime,” while extractor fans were clogged and drains blocked. A professional cleaner hired by the Briscoes reported the house “smelled very strongly of dog” and noted yellow spray marks on the walls, further indicating canine presence. The cleaner also described “built-up mould” and “sticky, dirty” surfaces, suggesting a prolonged lack of cleaning.

A real estate agent’s assessment, presented to the tribunal, confirmed a strong and persistent odor of dog and urine upon entering the property. Even after professional cleaning, including multiple treatments on the carpet, the smell persisted, prompting a recommendation for full carpet replacement.

The tenants disputed the claims of extensive damage and odor, attributing any smell to a previous bathroom leak that had been repaired. However, adjudicator Theo Baker found it “more likely than not” that the carpet’s odor stemmed from something other than the leak. Baker also expressed surprise that the carpet cleaner proceeded with extensive cleaning given the recommendation for replacement.

The Briscoes initially sought over $22,000 in compensation for cleaning and repairs. However, considering the age of the property’s fixtures – most being nearly a decade old – Baker reduced the amount. The tribunal ordered Tata and Wilson to pay $1105 for cleaning, $1134 for carpet cleaning, $188.47 for dishwasher repairs, and $1184.50 for painting, totaling $3611.47, to be deducted from their bond.

Solicitor Michael Thornton, speaking to NZME, described social media as a “grey area” for landlords. He stated that while publicly available information can be accessed, landlords must discuss any findings with tenants. He cautioned against accessing private profiles or soliciting URLs to private social media accounts, as this could constitute a breach of privacy.