First, we do not work for THS. Just housesitters. We cannot answer to your question. The post was an encouragement to THS, not policy. We have no related authority.
Second, it is our understanding - perhaps wrong (caution appropriate) - that new booking fee does not apply to listings made in active memberships periods; that memberships can be renewed on a no-booking-fee basis if paid by 7 January 2026; and that we have not read in any THS communication any mention of potential grandfathering.
Third, many technology companies use time-limited marketing and/or offer an ability to extend subscriptions by one, or sometimes several, years. “Extend now before we increase the prices”. By way of example, Microsoft permits customers to have subscriptions up to five years away (we bought and activated multiple MS 365 subscriptions when pricing was attractive) so we are unimpacted by Microsoft price increases for several years.
Finally, even the above suggestion to THS was intended to provide temporary effect. Unless our understanding is inaccurate then any membership renewal payment after 7 January 2026 will cause a member to thereafter pay booking fees.
So our answer is none of those listed. It is just a suggestion.
Buying a home and flipping it as an individual is different than what a large corporation does. Even if you buy a few homes and in a good market only make a small profit on every flip, if you flip five properties a year managing to renovate and sell them, you’ll make a tidy sum.
This game is different. It doesn’t require making a company better. It just requires bringing in some short term revenue and then reselling. It might not even matter if there is a loss as they’ll be other “winners” in the portfolio to make up for it.
It’s ironic, but he likely didn’t have much choice in the matter after they sold to the new investors. Of course, equally possible he doesn’t really care at this point and is currently researching the new ‘product features’ that will keep members from confirming sits off-platform.
Late-stage Capitalism isn’t very compatible with idealistic consistency.
You’ve only been using THS since this summer, no? And have had two sitters, and presently have no upcoming dates? How often throughout the year do you think you’ll use the platform, that rate taken into consideration? A lot of sitters have back to back sits for months and months so the per-sit fee is really going to hit those sitters pretty hard.
This is crucial information. I wonder if some members think that the 100 millions went to THS and that they possibly can’t need more cash. The actual situation, as you describe it, is the opposite. The sale of the company created a dept to be payed to either/both old and/or new owners. I’m quite confident the issue behind the change is a need for better cash flow. Having a customer pay only one a year creates an unbalance as consumer behavior often follows patterns with many signing up at holidays and much fewer mid season.
Openness on these potential difficulties for the company is frankly not a good idea. One thing is the loss of customers the fees bring, but a “we might be going out of business- please pay for a full year now!” would be a disaster…
I’ve had a look at the company results as of 2024 (last filed full year) and they are quite obviously in trouble:
Context on the new fees (financial reality):
TrustedHousesitters is still loss-making. The operating company runs a multi-million-pound annual deficit, has negative equity, and depends on continued financial support from its parent company to remain a going concern. Cash flow from operations is not yet self-sustaining.
The recent introduction of additional customer fees appears to be a direct attempt to:
improve short-term cash flow
slow down losses
reduce reliance on investor/parent funding
In other words, this looks less like “greed” and more like a pressure move to stabilise finances in a business model that hasn’t reached profitability.
That doesn’t mean customers are wrong to be upset — it means the company is passing financial strain downstream, rather than absorbing it or clearly communicating the situation.
Bottom line:
The fees are likely a symptom of an underlying profitability problem, not a standalone decision. Whether that justifies them is a fair question — but financially, the move is unsurprising.
THS wasn’t purchased for $100 million, it was valuated at that when Mayfair Equity purchased them two years ago. They don’t publish an annual equity report but rather blog an annual impact report that doesn’t give anyone even a hint at how much they’ve taken in and profited each year.
Our 3rd sitter arrives next Friday. We’ve been THS members since June. We figure 4 long vacations per year of about a month each.. We won’t pay booking fees because we’re Premium members. Frequent sitters may do better with the 120 euro yearly upgrade to Premium.
They do publish their results as every company is obliged to. On the Companies House website you can download it and you’ll see they are clearly in the red. See my previous post for details.
Right, so my point here is that you’ve been using them for 6 months only and you’re only coming up on your 3rd sit experience with them, any “insight” you might have about, well, anything here seems a little ineffectual. There are people in these threads who’ve been with them for years and have done countless sits so they’ve a lot of valid upset and concern and by continuing to try to “sell” them the Premium membership as a solution can be truly irritating to most, I really hope you can appreciate all of that.
I don’t know if I’ll be adding anything new at all to this topic, after the 1000+ replies in the first thread and a couple hundred on this one. I’m a 5 star sitter and have done more sits this year than any of my previous years. Upgraded to Premium a few months ago, but realized it wasn’t worth it, since the airport lounge passes weren’t valid for any airport I was flying out of, and when I tried to get a hotel covered for a canceled sit, I was told my situation didn’t fulfill the criteria. So just a few days before this new rollout, I had downgraded my autorenew with THS back to Standard membership. The bottom line in all of this for me is TRUST. Like your name implies. Whenever a change like this is rolled out, with no warning whatsoever, and no way to get around accepting the new terms, it shatters trust, and that’s what I’m seeing in almost every single post on this forum. To me, for a platform where people TRUST their homes and beloved pets to be taken care of by often complete strangers, if trust is shattered, what else is left? How do we all know that Premium members won’t have to pay booking fees for every sit as well in another 6 months’ time? How do we all know we’re not going to end up feeling like fools if we upgrade to Premium and get hit with that? Fool me once, shame on you… and so on. It’s a matter of principle more than anything. How can a platform that claims to be so trustworthy make a change like this in such a way that obliterates that trust in one fell swoop? Oh, that’s right. Money.
From what I can see both Trusted Housesitters companies, one operational and one holding company, are losing quite substantial money as of 2024. They are both in the red, have limited cash and tons of debt. If things haven’t improved during 2025 they are in quite serious trouble. The question is how much the holding company owning the THS system might be willing to burn before turning a profit.
My advice is based on my knowledge of human nature and I’ve had more than enough experience during my 30+ year tenure as a business owner/eye doctor. 2 sits and reading countless posts is enough for me to have this platform pretty well figured out.
Members have 2 choices. Accept the new fees and policies and determine the most cost effective option which may not be Premium for infrequent sitters, or leave.
It appears to me that contrary to your suggestion about my inability to see the whole picture due to my relatively short tenure, those who have been here for much longer are too emotionally invested and aren’t thinking logically. They refuse to treat the platform as a business whose main goal is profitability, which is exactly what it is.
