Facebook exposes dog
According to a recently released Tenancy Tribunal decision the landlords had approved the tenants having a cat at the property but not a dog. When inspections were carried out the landlord claimed the dog must have been hidden.
Elizabeth Briscoe said that when arranging for the repair of the garage door in January 2025, Wilson accidentally texted her to say she would “have Rocky at work”.
When she asked Wilson whether that text was meant for her, she replied saying Rocky was their cat and she was taking it to the vet.
But the Briscoes found evidence of Rocky being a dog on Tata’s public Facebook page. There, they found a compilation video of photos celebrating the dog’s birthday that said “Ra whanau e kuri happy 1 year my ROCKY”.
The photos show Rocky inside the house.
Tenancy declined in cleanliness
Wilson and Tata had been renting the property since 2020.
At a rental inspection at the end of 2024, the Briscoes noticed the property was not as clean as it used to be. They suggested the couple could get a cleaner if they could not keep on top of the cleanliness.
When the tenancy ended in 2025, Wilson and Tata claimed they left the property in “excellent clean order”.
But the Briscoes told the tribunal the house did not seem to have been cleaned at all.
The carpet was stained with urine, it was damaged and smelled, and there was damage to walls, doors and window furnishings. They said every surface in the house was sticky and grimy.
They said there were cat biscuits, cat litter and cat faeces under the washing machine and dryer in the laundry. The wall in the downstairs bathroom was stained yellow with urine.
There were faeces on the toilets where the seats attach to the base and behind the seats. The bathroom drawers were described as filthy, full of hair, dirt and grime. The extractor fans were clogged and the drains blocked, the tribunal heard.
A cleaner hired by the Briscoes for an end-of-tenancy clean, texted them saying the house and the carpet “smelled very strongly of dog” and there were yellow spray marks on the walls from a dog.
“The amount of built-up mould was so bad. All the surfaces in the kitchen were so sticky, so dirty it was clear as day it had not been cleaned in a very long time.”
The tenants did not tell their landlords that Rocky the dog lived at the property. Screenshot / Facebook
The Briscoes then decided to place the property on the market in 2025.
A real estate agent said in a statement to the tribunal that upon entering the home, there was a strong and persistent odour of dog and urine throughout.
“The carpet was visibly dirty and stained. This was not a minor or isolated issue, but an immediate and overwhelming smell present from the doorway,” they said.
The agent returned to the property after the carpet had been professionally cleaned, some areas multiple times, but there was still a dominant smell of dog and urine.
The Briscoes were advised to replace the carpet.
The tenants denied they were responsible for the smell in the carpet, saying that if there was any smell, it was as a result of a leak in the bathroom that was fixed during the tenancy.
Tribunal adjudicator Theo Baker said it was more likely than not the smell of the carpet was not caused solely by a leak.
Baker was surprised the carpet cleaner went ahead and cleaned the carpets to the degree they did, given their recommendation the carpets should be replaced.
“I would have expected a professional carpet cleaner to make an assessment of the state of the carpet and the likely prospects of successfully deodorising the carpet before embarking on over a $1000 worth of cleaning and then recommending replacement.”
At the end of the tenancy the carpet was nine years old. The landlord has had the use of the carpet for that time, therefore, Baker found the tenants were not responsible for the full replacement cost, even if the damage was deemed to be intentional.
As well as the carpet, there was damage to walls and the dishwasher.
The Briscoes applied to the tribunal for more than $22,000 in cleaning and repair costs, but because of the age of items in the property, with the majority of things being almost 10 years old, Baker was not willing to make the tenants cover the full cost.
Baker ordered the tenants to pay $1105 to cover cleaning, $1134 for the carpet cleaning, $188.47 for repairs to the dishwasher and $1184.50 for painting, which was taken from their bond.
‘A grey area’
The tribunal decision did not say if the landlords had spoken to the tenants about finding the video of Rocky on Tata’s Facebook.
Solicitor Michael Thornton told NZME social media was a “bit of a grey area” for landlords.
“My view is that if the information is public, the landlord can access it, but once they learn of the information must discuss it with the tenants.”
“But the landlord can’t access private information such as a locked profile, use others to access such information, or ask for URLs to private social media profiles.”
This would otherwise be a breach of privacy, Thornton said.
Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the lower South Island. She has been a journalist since 2018 and has had a strong interest in business and financial journalism.