Hi I am just reading the T & C’s. I have been with the site for over 10 years as both a HO and a sitter. I am reading in the T & C - Condition 5.3.7 that if there is damage to the property you get the HO permission for repair, pay for the repair, then request the HO to reimburse you (as long as you did not cause the damage). However in the HO’s T & C there is no requirement that they do reimburse you. (I note that in the case of vet fees the T & C’s state that they must reimburse you so it seems odd that damage, or, let’s say, something that is definitely a requirement - like air conditioning in the stinking heat - does not leave the sitter covered). That seems a little unfair to the sitter that we can only request reimbursement and the HO is not required to reimburse in the T & C’s. Just putting it out there that this should be added to the T & C’s. I am not in this situation, only asking because all the changes to the conditions have made me go through all the details once again.
Crap clause. Why should a sitter have to pay for damage they did not cause and hope homeowner reimburses? Any decent HO would take care of this themselves and let’s be real, we all want to sit for decent people. I have to believe that’s most people on this site, just not the Mayfair people 
This clause was in the T&C’s before Mayfair. It is unreasonable, imagine what could happen in a tornado!
But of course, if there was for example storm damage on the roof, I would try to take measures to prevent that matters would get worse by rain leaking in etc.
I let HOs know that I won’t be paying vet bills or home damage bills …. and they need to make other arrangements.
Yes, I think Mayfair are just clarifying a lot of the legalese as they surely have expensive lawyers on tap. Probably it’s mostly aimed at the US since they tend to be more litigious than other countries. Still if you were the risk adverse type you surely wouldn’t sit at all.
I don’t agree with these terms either, but this ,and the one about laying out expenses for the vet if you can’t get in touch with the host, have been in the terms and conditions for quite some time.
It seems that many people are reading them for the first time after being recently required to agree to their contents to continue onto the site. I will admit that I did not look at them until relatively recently considering how long I have been a member of the site–probably some time this year, maybe a bit longer ago.
If people are truly concerned about the possibility of such things happening, the best a sitter can do is discuss their concerns upfront and ask what measures hosts would have in place to take care of such things if they were unreachable, and that you would not be able to handle such costs–there are a number of sitters here who have said they explicitly discuss these matters with hosts ahead of time.
I doubt many hosts would truly hold sitters to these terms, and any that would, especially after being asked directly about this, would probably not be people with whom you would want to partner anyway ;so if raising these concerns and stating you would not take on such costs is something that caused you to ‘lose’ that sit, it’s really not a true loss.
Agreed. I find myself replying to this member several times who clearly has it figured out.
Cmon people who in their right mind is going to pay thousands for say, a flooded basement and hope to get paid back?
No one is going to do that just like no one in their right mind is going to foot a $10,000 vet bill because a pet owner didn’t make prior arrangements with the vet in case of emergency. This last requirement has been in the THS rules for years and it’s been ignored.
Sure there’s rules and there’s going to be risk for cheering to them. Almost every time a pet sitter crosses an international border they’re taking a risk. It’s the nature of the platform.
Mitigate the risk by discussing these issues during the video chat and make sure everyone is on the same page. It doesn’t complete eliminate the liability but it’s close enough for most practical purposes.
The vet/damage thing is easy to sort- I ask HOs to nominate somebody locally a friend or family member to be their ‘decision maker’ on their behalf re any vet visits… it solves the problem.
If we damage something that is small we will pay to fix it. Anything else I will contact the HO or the emergency contact to arrange a repair. Most HO have home insurance and I will not pay out of pocket then hope to be reimbursed! That said I won’t leave a home to have my additional damage from a needed repair but I will hound the emergency contact if I can’t reach the HO. Enough is enough, this is a free service!
I’m confused and concerned about the legal implications of a sitter who refuses to abide by this clause. Even if a discussion is had beforehand, whereby the HO assures the sitter that they will take care of their own (damages and/or vet) expenses - what if, when it comes down to it, the HO decides not to do so, after all, for whatever reason? Would this make sitters liable legally, given that sitters have already agreed to these T&Cs? . . . And could sitters then end up being sued if they do not honour them?
Yes of course the sitter would be liable, if the two parties have nothing more than a verbal understanding, in the event the host denies having had such a conversation and expects the sitter to be bound to the Terms they agreed to.
The conversation is to simply make sure both parties are on the same page to avoid misunderstandings and ensure the proper safeguards are in place in the event of an emergency. Regardless, people can change their minds and if it isn’t in writing than the only thing holding it together is trust which isn’t worth the paper it’s not written on.
So, the only way for a Sitter to ensure they are not held liable legally, would be to get it “in writing”, and co-signed by the HO, prior to the sit, including a clause that the HO will meet all the necessary expenses. It isn’t enough to get verbal agreements from the HO. And it also isn’t enough for a Sitter to simply declare, even in writing to the HO, that they will not meet these expenses.
What happens if a pet damages the home, who is liable?
I’m going to keep following this discussion but now that I have found and reread the clause I feel a little bit better about it, It’s 5.3.7 for anybody that’s interested. It doesn’t say that you’re liable for damage, but that in the event of an emergency when you can’t contact the pet parent you will pay to repair and seek reimbursement and honestly, I think that’s maybe easy enough to work with? I don’t ever intend to pay for repairs but I will totally secure the premises to the best of my ability to prevent further damage and they can arrange final repair when they wish. Does anybody else interpret that this way?
This clause does cause concern though if it’s something major like a flooded basement or kitchen that makes the home somewhat uninhabitable. I certainly don’t intend to pay for those repairs and seek reimbursement but I have checked the box that says I will…
Notify the HO that they need to have a vet account set up with a CC in case of emergencies and similarly, a list of providers of home repairs whom they have an account with. I always inform pet parents and do the same for my sitters a d it’s been smooth sailing.