Apart from THS guidelines or whether it’s on this platform or elsewhere, I’m surprised when sits I’d consider irrational get applicants. And they usually do. So I figure people have their reasons.
I’m curious how the HOs would collect their money in this case. Say the sitters show up and refuse to pay. Would the HOs kick them out and go without? What would THS do?
When I see absurd listings that have applicants, I wonder if maybe those applicants only made contact with the owner to let them know that their requests are not in line with THS rules?
Or they applied in a hurry without reading the whole listing.
Likely. I just found the listing and tbh, the house is just average. I can’t imagine how a sitter would use $50 a day in electricity, since there is no pool/sauna/hot tub. No major consumers. And since, for $82 a night I can get a motel in the same city, with breakfast included, and no duties, I think I’d pass on this one!
I’d pass on principle, even if I had to pay a lot for a hotel. That’s because no one’s going to get me to pay them to take care of their pets or home.
This reminds me of an episode of “Ducktales” (the original). “Duck to the Future.” In that cartoon reality, Scrooge McDuck goes to a future where his nephews have become greedy and implemented a “privilege of working for us” tax.
So, that kind of reality. 
Exactly @Maggie8K - you either want a pet sitter or you want a paid for service. Asking someone for money to take care of your pets is laughable 
Just curious if THS is doing anything about this listing. A $50 a day fee is not utilities.
Yes. $50 per day would have a margin of PROFIT. Not cool
That was 17 hours ago. The listing is still there, with the same wording.
I reported them to THS and this was their response: "We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. Technically, the pet parent is allowed to ask for assistance from a sitter for utility expenses to help out with the cost. However, it will be a risk for them as they may not be able to find a sitter who will apply for their sit.
This usually only happens on longer sits, but the pet parents can request it for any length or sit, as long as they are upfront and transparent about it on the listing and in their first contact messages with the sitters. Trustedhousesitters will not be involved in any of these arrangements; this is a private arrangement, and all agreements are directly between the sitters and the pet parents. "
We need an eye roll 
emoji
@Harris2 So they are going to let the HO charge $300 for this 6-day sit?
When I see applications for sits like this I assume they are new, inexperienced sitters who don’t know this isn’t allowed and/or are trying trying to get reviews. I hate to see new sitters exploited. I can’t believe THS is allowing this. I guess HOs are now allowed to charge for property taxes, the mortgage payment will be allowed next.
This feels very different from a three month sit where a homeowner is asking you to pay for stuff that would otherwise be turned off. It also includes property taxes! The owner has to pay property taxes whether they are there or not. What’s next? Rent? Mortgage?
@Harris2 Thank you for sharing the response. You may want to respond with a dictionary definition of ‘utilities’ as it certainly doesn’t cover property taxes.
It’s awful, but those sitters who actually agree to it and pay will make the whole situation worse.
While this isn’t something that affects me directly, it bothers me because it signals the end of a model that works for both sitters and homeowners. There are other sites out there that charge less to members and allow negotiations for fees to both parties. This site has succeeded because it’s pretty clear. Lots of sits available. Sitters pay their own food, and travel expenses, but get a nice place to stay and explore in return for pet care. Homeowners get care of their home and pets for free in return for making sure the place is habitable and the animals aren’t dangerous.
I don’t want to see a drop in applications because somehow sitters think I must be charging because it’s a good location or if I’m not charging them it must be terrible and who’d want to do it? I don’t want to deal with sitters who think I’m cheapskate because someone else offered them money for a similar sit. I just don’t buy “It’s the same as charging for utilities. There is nothing we can do.” This is bad, and it will lead to bad stuff. Here’s what I think will happen. I don’t think they’ll get a good sitter. They’ll get someone who will have their own agenda for the sit. They are setting themselves up for a bad experiences and this is dangerous to the dogs. The sitters themselves could be in danger and the homeowners are also taking a huge risk. If I were employed by THS, I would want to stay as far away from this as possible.
Those dogs look sooo depressed. Does the sitter need to cover their Prozac too?
I think the sign of the times might be people’s laziness/disinterest in reading. I had a call for a sit the other day and the HO asked me how Trusted House Sitters worked (despite having created a complete profile) and I started to explain, realized how ridiculous that was, and told her she might want to check out the website and try for another sitter when she’s ready…
The only circumstances under which anything would be turned off is for a no pets sit. Even then, the housesitter is providing security and maintenance. And what, in reality, would be turn off-able? Even in Europe with the high cost of heating, it’s not as though HOs can turn it off when the home is unoccupied, just down.