Beware - THS Deceptive & Misleading conduct

Sitter Questions, Advice & Chat
1

I want to raise awareness about TrustedHousesitters (THS) and their misleading Money Back Promise. The issue lies in the way this policy is worded on their website versus how it is enforced.

On their website, it says:
“You can cancel your membership and receive your money back if you have been unsuccessful in confirming a sit within 14 days of making your 5th application. This applies to your first-year membership only.”

This wording strongly implies that a refund could be requested if your 5th application remains unconfirmed after 14 days. However, when I requested a refund, I was told that the refund application must be made within 14 days of the 5th application itself. This directly contradicts the impression given on their website and is, in my opinion, misleading and deceptive.

By enforcing the policy in this way, THS effectively denies members the opportunity to claim a refund under their supposed “promise.” The wording on the website is unclear and creates false expectations, leaving members in a position where they may unknowingly miss the opportunity to claim the refund they are entitled to. This conduct benefits THS at the expense of its members and raises serious questions about their transparency and business ethics.

If you are in the same situation as myself, where you have been denied a refund based on this policy, I would strongly recommend two actions. First, contact your bank or credit card company and request a chargeback. Many financial institutions take misleading policies like this very seriously and may refund your money if you explain the situation. Second, I encourage you to make a submission to your local consumer rights body. These organizations exist to protect consumers against misleading or deceptive conduct by businesses.

In Australia, you can contact the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
In the UK, you can reach out to Trading Standards or lodge a complaint with the Citizens Advice Bureau.
In the United States, you can file a report with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

I would also recommend avoiding TrustedHousesitters altogether if you are considering signing up. This experience has shown me that their policies lack transparency and their enforcement of those policies is not in line with what is communicated on their website. For a service-based business, trust and integrity should be paramount, and unfortunately, THS has failed in this regard.

There are numerous other posts online from people who have had similar experiences with TrustedHousesitters, so I know I am not alone in this. If you have faced the same issue, I would encourage you to share your experience as well. Companies need to be held accountable for misleading conduct, and the only way to do that is to speak up and take action.

2

I read it as THS intended. It states it’s within 14 days of “making your 5th application”. When you “make your 5th application” is exactly the correct way to word it in my eyes. It’s in black and white and it’s crystal clear.

It’s not deceptive, misleading, or contradictory at all. I feel you may be letting your disappointment overshadow things here. Pet sitting on THS is amazing, so you may be stuck with it now I’m afraid, so enjoy it instead.

6 Likes
3

I agree this wording is ambiguous; it could mean you qualify for a refund if you haven’t confirmed a sit within 14 days of making your 5th application, but could also read that you must request the refund within 14 days of making your 5th application.

Like you, i’d have believed the first interpretation was applicable.

1 Like
4

This would not be possible as you would have to wait for the 14 days after the 5th application to run out in order to be eligible for the refund. If you applied on day 13 they would be able to reject it saying it hasn’t been 14 days and you might still get the sit.
This sounds like THS are still using the same lawyers that told then they could write a letter that would override each countries visa policies.

You should definitely pursue this and a chargeback would be a good start.

2 Likes
5

No, the response from THS would surely mean that application for refund can be made at any time from making the 5th application, up until 14 days following application.

I believe the OP has a valid argument; this isn’t made clear by the wording.

1 Like
6

What is clear is that

  1. a sitter must submit five (unsuccessful) applications.
  2. a sitter can file for a refund if that fifth application is declined within 14 days of submission.

What is not clear (at least to me) is exactly when the refund claim must be filed. Should it be filed

  1. within 14 days of the fifth application’s initial submission (e.g., on day 13), or
  2. within the 14-day window that follows the 14-day waiting period for a confirmation (e.g. on day 27)?
1 Like
7

Immediately below that your quoted bit of prose is this:

Want to know if you’re eligible? Check here.

Which gets you this verbiage:

For Sitters, you must meet the following criteria:

  • You are in your first year of membership

  • You have submitted at least 5 applications

  • All of your applications have been declined or received no response

  • It has not been more than 14 days since your 5th application

Could not be clearer.

If money-back guarantees and “insurance” plans are important to you, avoiding unpleasant surprises requires understanding the terms before attempting to make a claim

2 Likes
8

Hmm. The first section the OP quoted is pretty ambiguous (I read it as the OP did), but the additional info is plain as day.

My question is, why does one have to click an extra link for the super-clear definition? Why not just include the 2nd description, right out where it can be read?

FWIW, I don’t believe it’s a deliberate attempt to deceive…that would be a bit silly when they’re willing to do the refund — it’s just a bit poorly written and formatted.

That said, because it is mildly confusing & the timeframe is so narrow, AND the member has been unsuccessful finding a sit — why not just do the refund in this case, and make it clearer by including the secondary text? Why generate the bad will? There’s nothing useful in an unhappy new member who’s getting nothing from the service, just to hang on to their $120-ish dollars.

@Jenny @Mark_B

2 Likes
9

That’s much clearer.

1 Like
10

OP, since you will not be granted a refund, let’s make this a blessing in disguise. Why don’t you post your profile to get feedback to give you the highest possibility to get a sit. It may turn out to be an amazing year of adventure for you. I would suggest looking at local sits first to build up reviews. Last minute sits and low applications without you having reviews may be your best target audience right now.

4 Likes
11

Confusing. For clarity’s sake: Was your request rejected because it was more than 14 days after you submitted your 5th application?

12

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation here. The issue here lies in the inherently contradictory and misleading way this policy is presented on the TrustedHousesitters website. While you referenced the additional verbiage linked under “Want to know if you’re eligible? Check here,” this does not absolve the primary issue, being that the wording of the Money Back Promise itself. I’ll spell it out:

The primary statement on their website reads:
“You can cancel your membership and receive your money back if you have been unsuccessful in confirming a sit within 14 days of making your 5th application.”

This statement strongly implies that the 14 days after the 5th application are a waiting period to determine whether a sit is confirmed. A reasonable person would interpret this as a promise that, after 14 days, if none of the applications are successful, you are eligible to request a refund. Nowhere in that core statement does it specify that the refund request itself must be made within those same 14 days. This ambiguity is the heart of the issue.

The additional verbiage you referenced (“It has not been more than 14 days since your 5th application”) may clarify their intent, but it directly contradicts the initial promise. Expecting members to dig through secondary links to uncover restrictions that fundamentally change the meaning of the main statement is the definition in many consumer protection bodies of misleading and poor practice. A policy as important as a Money Back Promise should be fully transparent and free of conflicting language.

To further demonstrate why this is problematic:

  1. The Contradiction: The primary statement makes it sound like the 14 days are an eligibility window for confirming a sit, whereas the secondary verbiage enforces it as a deadline for requesting the refund. These are two entirely different things, and the former is far more natural to infer from the initial statement.

  2. Well-documented confusion: This isn’t an isolated misunderstanding. There are numerous threads both here and on Reddit and elsewhere where users have expressed frustration with this exact issue, and which has already been raised to THS. If the policy were as clear as you claim, why are so many people interpreting it differently? This is a classic indicator of poor communication and the fact that THS is refusing to rectify the issue indicates that it is in their interest to retain it as it provides an advantage over other similar providers.

  3. Responsibility of Clarity: The burden of ensuring terms and conditions are clear and unambiguous lies with the business, not the consumer. A well-written policy does not require cross-referencing secondary links to resolve contradictions or uncover hidden time limits. Consumers should be able to trust the face-value meaning of the main statement.

Finally, your point about “understanding the terms before attempting to make a claim” is valid in principle but misses the mark here. Members are engaging with a policy that appears clear on its face but is later contradicted by details tucked into a secondary link. That’s not a failure of due diligence on the member’s part, it’s a failure of transparency on THS’ part.

2 Likes
13

Maybe not deliberate attempt to deceive, but I do think they do anything to be ambitious, so that they can keep the control on when they pay back.

Like the front page says “free to create a profile”. Yes, you just cant use it for anything, but it is absolutely true that you are free to create it. This is trickstery, and they do it on purpose. And over and over again (I have just been informed, that me paying more to get “unlimited searches” gives me up to 50 searches - hardly unlimited).

14

@CRT you articulate your case & the issue very well but I don’t believe the ACCC will have jurisdiction in this as THS is a UK registered company. I’m keen to know what the ACCC advise you as THS has a large cohort of Australian members. Please report back here to update the forum. You might like to put your negative review on Trust Pilot to warn others.

1 Like
15

I see your point but can also see a different reasonable interpretation (THS’s). They both fit the language. Had I read the first description, I would not have been sure how to parse the sentence and would have dug deeper. Clicking 1 link down to get a crystal clear understanding is not much digging in my experience. Based on prior experiences with other companies, I am very wary about money back guarantees or the $100K home contents protection advertised as $1M in home protection. I always dig down if it’s something I care about.

1 Like
16

I said the LANGUAGE is crystal clear though you have to read all of the not very verbose fine print. Fine print is the bane of every product and service but clicking through 1 link to see qualifying criteria does not qualify as “digging” in my experience.

17

Sorry, but wait…what??

What membership tier gives limited searches? I’ve never seen that…is it something new? I signed up less than a year ago; I’m premium because I have serious FOMO, but I don’t remember anything like this.

Limiting searches seems nuts. Is it a limit to saved searches, perhaps?