You’re right. And homeowners are by far taking the bigger risk at every sit – their house and their pets! However, in this case, the homeowners didn’t give the sitter a reason and made him drive 6 hours round trip. It’s just bad behavior.
They should have done enough due diligence before confirming him for the sit and inviting him to the home.
Assuming they needed some time to think and discuss after he left, they could have explained the reason, apologized for the inconvenience, and offered gas money or something to compensate for the time and effort.
We only have one side of the story, but from that side it seems like they confirmed in order to get the in person meeting so they could make a decision, and I don’t think that’s how this site is supposed to work.
I agree sitters should be respected for the time and effort and never do anything that is unreasonable.
@bakindoki No one suggested you leave your dog with someone unsafe. However, the “when it’s a no, it’s a no” is supposed to happen prior to confirmation, not after. It seems you should take responsibility and hone your vetting skills. I’m certainly not “triggered” by usage of a word, it’s the both the inequality and legal nature of the word that is problematic and doesn’t align with the platform. You didn’t fire, you cancelled an agreement.
I am a HO and I never would do this. By the way, I think your post and question is absolutely clear.
I am a very direct, but polite person. I had situations where I cut the videocall after 20 minutes saying: “Excuse me, but I think this is not the right match, because of… Let’s not extend the call now. Thank you very much again for your interest in the sit.”
If after explaining it twice that’s where you’re at, ok.
We do now ask if people are capable of climbing a flight of stairs, have any broken limbs or are losing their vision explicitly . Which is ridiculous and in my opinion a bit patronising, but due to previous precedent, we ask and just explain why we’re asking.