That’s exactly what it appears to be.
You can cancel the sit, then cancel auto renewal and then you can list as many sits as you like. They won’t be covered by THS but you can fully use the benefits of your membership until the very last day.
I’ve got two regular sits that I will do off the platform. I have a year until my membership renews to find some more regular sits. I’ve joined MindMyHouse and will explore other options as and when they arise. I’m still hopeful that THS will do a U-turn when they realise that they have scored a spectacular own goal.
And still, we are keeping arguing with Steve instead of arguing with THS.
“wag the dog”
This is a great summary of the situation which many entitled HO Owners don’t seem to grasp, because to them they just see things through a money orientated lense
(Edited in line with forum guidelines)
I think the booking fee is another money grab, similar to Airbnb. Bad move. That being said I’d like to propose that the pet owners have an option to pay the sitters booking fee. An OPTION. The sitters come free & it hurts my heart you are going to charge them to care for our pets. Please rethink this. I find it very poor customer action. You don’t need more money. I already contacted TH directly & they say they are gonna free to the top guns, I’m really sad about it. We have loved using your service & this leaves a bad taste. Please. Respond with good hard sensible facts, thank you, Deb Kittrell, member for many years
(Edited to be in line with forum guidelines)
I don’t think this is about entitled HOs but about THS decision to apply booking fees.
I honestly don’t think the approach “HOs versus sitters” helps in any way, quite the opposite, this is about HOs and sitters making good matches with one another.
One of the owners I’ve sat for would happily pay the sitter’s fee and other owners have said the same on here. It’s up to owners, nothing to do with THS.
THS is unlikely to reverse this decision on booking fees. It’s there for good.
Welcome to the forum but you may find this is just a thread for members to let off steam. You won’t get any answers here, just the opinions of others.
Your options are to contact Membership Services but they are pretty busy at present.
Some members have been getting a general response from THS on Trustpilot.
Unfortunately THS probably don’t care who pays the booking fee - it still goes to them regardless.
Jenny needs the raise
My goodness this is insulting!
The subject heading implies well… “ that you heard us” but nope!!!
Well you heard us, ignored us and trot out the same “ political speak” that the original email about the fee had.
For all the “ improvements “ necessary we pay a hefty monthly fee.
The booking fee is a money grab.
Can we just all agree it’s a money grab and move on??
The condswallop management pushes to justify the money grab is insulting and just more… well codswallop!!
Not your fault Jenny, you are just doing your job.
I have been a member of THS for over 11 years. I joined back when there were literally 300 or so sitters only.
It’s grown exponentially and now you are getting greedy. Yet, back when I joined the customer services was amazing! The “ bots” were actual real people!
The bigger you had grown, the worse you have become. Shame on you.
But please stop with the jargon and call it what it is: a money grab!!!
@richten1, very interesting data. Perspective depends on revenue growth during that time.
I recall a related framework that traded %growth, $profits and $cashflows. Pick only two of these three attributes at any one time. Institutional investors typically are wholly comfortable with losses … provided that growth (or cashflows) are high … as business valuation increases commensurately.
What does that actually mean?
Look, if THS is more expensive to run now, OK, fine: Raise the subs. But don’t introduce a stealth sub on top of those we already pay! This weird spin feels like giving a dog a belly-rub…. With acid-coated gloves.
“This isn’t about changing the core exchange.” Yes, it is. It will change this wonderful, perfectly working system to the worse.
TH has not heard the community. Otherwise, we would now be reading a “we are sorry” and that TH is taking the fee back.
Seconding this wholeheartedly when looking back over the past few years
Good point. Did THS consider that??
Takes me a while to catch up, I guess, but, I was thinking today, I can’t be the only one who might have to pay someone to check MY house while I go sit somewhere. I’ve already been paying my own “booking fee”, thanks to the handyperson who comes to water my plants, charging a high hourly rate.
YES, that’s on me, for choosing to have a crapload of plants that need checking every few days. But that just makes another fee from THS that much more annoying.
Plus we sitters are paying for gas, plane tickets, maybe accommodation before/after a sit, or whatever else to get there.
Blaaaaah 
I haven’t read all 350 comments on here but I probably don’t need to to get the general vibe which is overwhelmingly negative! No-one can defend the amount charged which without a doubt, is way too high (notwithstanding the principle etc etc). But on a more pragmatic note and I don’t know if anyone has made this comment, but I would suggest to THS if they were to backtrack on this a bit and save some face, then I think they would do well to not charge this fee for any sit LESS THAN 3 DAYS, or something along these lines. I feel sorry for owners who need a sitter for a day or two and I think they will struggle even more to find someone. Personally, I am always looking long sits and tend to avoid short stays if I can help it (the effort, time travelling, you name it). But I would be even LESS inclined to do one now. I think this might be a useful compromise.
I just cancelled my membership autorenewal. In the process I selected pause which means at the end of my membership in July, they will pause my account for 3 months and if I chose to remain with THS, I just have to pay the fee then. They ask why I’m doing this, this is what I replied: “I’m not impressed by the new booking fee. I am reconsidering my choices so I don’t want my plan to renew automatically.” If a lot of people did this, that might send a message that is harder to ignore.
I’m trying to understand how the introduction of the Booking Fee interacts with consumer law principles, and I’d genuinely appreciate thoughtful perspectives from the community.
Previously, membership fees appeared to cover access to the platform. With the Booking Fee now being charged at the point of confirmation, payment seems tied to a specific transaction rather than general access.
My question is this:
If a fee is charged when a sit is “confirmed,” does that imply that a defined service is being supplied at that point, based on the platform’s own rules and conditions governing confirmation?
In particular, once the platform financially profits from a specific transaction — regardless of whether customer support is later required or not — it seems to imply that the fee is no longer simply about access to the platform, but about a paid-for service connected to that transaction.
Put another way, the paid-for service appears to be the existence of a meaningful confirmation itself — including the expectation that both parties will perform in accordance with the platform’s rules — rather than merely the ability to message or connect.
If that’s the case, what happens if the conditions that give meaning to that confirmation are not met — for example, where a confirmation later proves ineffective due to rule breaches, platform failures, or circumstances that undermine the very confirmation being paid for?
I’m not suggesting that TrustedHousesitters guarantees the sit itself. But from a consumer-law perspective, charging per transaction usually creates reasonable expectations around fairness, clarity, and the actual supply of the service being paid for.
More broadly, when platforms move from access-based fees to transaction-based fees, this often raises questions around:
• how the paid service is defined
• whether fees can fairly be retained if the transaction collapses
• how rules of conduct begin to define the paid service itself
• and how non-refundability interacts with consumer protection principles
I’m interested in how others interpret the Booking Fee in this light — particularly those with legal, regulatory, or platform experience. This is asked in good faith and for understanding, not as an accusation.
Put simply: Consumer law comes into effect as soon as there is a charge for a service. As the charge is tied to the assumption that both parties are going to fulfil the THS codes of conduct, and the implication of services/accommodation of a certain standard are agreed to be supplied (reason for payment), my understanding is that that charge is now tied to performance. Should either party not fulfil their obligations (fail to perform their contract), consumer law would reasonably allow the non-defaulting party to be refunded that fee, and on the worst end, may make THS liable for the expectations advertised that led to the transactions made, thereby making them additionally liable for losses to the non-defaulting party (loss of accommodation, travel expenses incurred, damages to property). I’m not a lawyer, but I’m asking this question now before the fees start.
In other words, this fee could open up a can of worms…No matter what disclaimers THS may have created with their lawyers, consumer law would presumably trump all that legalese.