My two cents a on London sits from my limited experience last summer. We were doing our Schengen shuffle and needed about a month in London. Dates flexible within that month. Location just London. Started looking early applied for one I was really keen on, enough to send a message a few days after not hearing anything. Eventually I took something else only to be asked later if I was still interested.
I lucked out got two back to back sits a short bus ride apart both in locations I was truly keen on. However this was summer and people are holidaying. As a full time alternative to paying rent I think it could be time consuming and stressful. If you are in London you know you are in demand so you will have as many applications as you can be bothered going through. They also don’t need to advertise early. And if you are trying to commute, well you could be all over the place every week.
People all do THS differently. I don’t do paid overnight sitting anywhere. I use THS for slow travel a few times a year to places I want to go. I also host. Some sitters have been locally based and have various reasons to do local sits. Because I live in a popular area, sometimes sitters do come back from a distance. They aren’t back to collect reviews. They are back because they have things to do in my city.Personally, I love to take cat sits in the country a few hours away. I would go back to almost all of those sits if I had a chance.
Sorry the way other people use the site makes you cringe, or feels frustrating to you. You could share your profile and approach with others and maybe get some tips that would help you land sits.
I don’t know that that has happened yet. The booking fees were only announced a few weeks ago, and will go into effect gradually as people renew or new people come in.
@PollyJ, welcome to THS Forum.
We do not believe that there is a two-tier system in terms of repeat vs non-repeat housesits.
We’ve completed 50+ housesits and only a handful have been repeat sits. In 2025, we completed three housesits in central London and none were repeat housesits.
That said, we do believe that demand for listings probably varies enormously. Some listings are highly attractive in terms of location; property; pet responsibilities; duration; information; and other factors. And vice versa. So we suspect that pet parents with high demand listings may carefully choose preferred housesitters - criteria is subjective and may reflect experience, or locality or demographic or any other attribute. Equally a housesitter with limited experience may find difficulty in securing premium listings in premium locations/attributes.
By not applying you may miss out on good opportunities. Our first 6 times with THS we had the same sitters that we invited with private dates after the first sit. This time they weren’t available so we published public dates for only the second time. We found a new sitter pretty quickly (back in June for now) and it was someone with few reviews. She unfortunately had to cancel in November due to an injury. When we posted for our two months sit less than two months away we found no one through THS but finally found someone after posting on two other sites. And next year when we post again with public dates it will look like we only had repeat sitters when that won’t be true anymore because we had to go through a different site.
Things are evolving about booking and securing sits. New costs new clients new sitters and I’m changing as an established sitter too. Some are seeking me out with a random invitation out of the blue to sit in the Black Forest… they liked my profile! Oookkk! On sits now I actively canvas for myself. I’ve visited someone who wanted to use me before but couldn’t and is at present between pets but is involving me as she chooses her next one! What a lovely compliment that is !
Another is new to THS and has always used family but contacted me as she knows I love this area. A third is a friend of the Home Owner and wants to use me for her property with two cats. So much is going on WhatsApp now. Ones I’ve said no to as I’m booked have said well pencil me in for next year..
I don’t want money. I don’t mind doing it for
“free”. I do mind the new changes. I will do it as I want for who I want. When I’m too tired I will stop. My sit my choice my terms.
Here’s another reason Housesitters may be in increasing demand.. forget the pets!
Distressing details of an empty home over Christmas and New Year that was broken into, trashed, white goods stolen along with jewellery, clothes, electric bikes, antiques etc.
owner was away visiting relatives. So sometimes no pets but caretaking duties..
(Personal correspondence removed in line with the Community Rules)
hanks for sharing your experience — and I agree that people can build up repeats and momentum over time, especially if they’re flexible on location and dates.
I think where I’m coming from is slightly different though. My point isn’t really about whether it’s possible to succeed on THS, or how to build reviews — it’s about what happens to access in places like London when a lot of sits are effectively recycled through the same small group of people.
Even if repeats sometimes happen off-platform, the effect is the same: fewer sits circulate, while THS keeps selling new memberships. So newer or occasional sitters aren’t just competing with each other — they’re competing with a system where a chunk of the supply is already locked up.
I’m not saying repeat sits are wrong or that people shouldn’t have them just that, at scale, it creates a structural imbalance that hits certain cities much harder than others. That’s the bit I think is worth talking about, beyond individual strategies for getting ahead.
Thanks for sharing your perspective and I really respect that you’ve made full-time sitting work for so long. It clearlyt us possible, and I’m not disputing that.
I think where we’re talking slightly past each other is that I’m not saying full-time sitting is inherently risky or unviable — I’m pointing to how, in some locations, the way sits circulate ends up concentrating access among a small number of people.
What prompted this for me wasn’t theory but what I’m actually seeing on the platform. I’ve come across several sitter profiles with back-to-back London sits for close to two years, often explicitly framed as a way to “try out neighbourhoods before committing” or move around the city. That tells me that, at least for some people, THS really is functioning as a long-term housing solution in one of the most expensive rental markets in the world.
I don’t think those sitters are doing anything wrong they’re just using the system as it’s designed. But the knock-on effect is that a lot of London sits never really open up to the wider pool, even though many other sitters (who pay the same membership fee) would love the chance to do even one or two sits there.
I agree THS can’t guarantee anyone sits, and it’s not obliged to make things “fair” in a strict sense. But when a platform monetises access to something scarce — in this case, desirable locations and accommodation I do think it’s reasonable to ask whether the way that access is distributed still matches what members are paying for.
That’s really all I’m trying to get at. It’s less about blaming individuals, and more about noticing that, in certain cities, the system seems to have tilted toward a small group of heavy users in a way that makes it very hard for everyone else to get a look-in.
I think that’s actually part of what I’m pointing to.
If people are effectively sitting year-round in one city like London, or circulating within a small “club” of highly desirable sits, that means a big chunk of the supply never really enters the open pool whether it’s London flats or those Caribbean “tortoise and mansion” sits.
Again, I don’t think anyone is doing anything wrong individually. But when a small number of sitters end up repeatedly accessing the most valuable locations, it does start to look less like an open exchange and more like a closed list. And because THS charges everyone the same, people who don’t have access to those networks are paying into a system that doesn’t really give them the same opportunity.
That’s the structural issue I’m trying to name not whether people should be allowed to build great repeat relationships, but what happens to access for everyone else when so much gets locked up at the top end
I’ve come across several sitter profiles with back-to-back London sits for close to two years, one literally said “try out neighbourhoods before committing to where to live in London” or move around the city. That tells me that, at least for some people, THS really is functioning as a long-term housing solution in one of the most expensive rental markets in the world. Seriously, after 2 years of back to back sits this person can’t decide where to live in London?
Sorry, I think there may have been a bit of a misunderstanding of what I was getting at in my original post, so I just wanted to clarify.
What I’m talking about isn’t only about brand-new sitters. It’s about anyone — new or experienced — repeatedly being told “we went with a previous sitter.” That happens because of trust, which I completely understand, but when it happens at scale it means a large number of sits simply aren’t really available to the wider community anymore. At the same time, THS continues to heavily market and sell memberships to new sitters, even though the number of genuinely open sits in some locations is quite limited.
London is a good example of this. I’ve come across several sitter profiles with back-to-back London sits for close to two years. It’s very clear that, for some people, THS has become an alternative to paying rent in an extremely expensive city. I don’t blame anyone for making that work for themselves — if you can do it, great — but it does have consequences for everyone else who would also like the chance to sit, visit, or spend time in London.
I don’t know how to reply all!
So my question isn’t “should repeat sitters exist?” it’s whether the system should do more to balance things. Right now, a small number of people can absorb a huge amount of housing value from the platform, while others (who pay the same fee) can barely get a look-in in certain cities. That’s where it starts to feel like a structural flaw rather than just bad luck.
I’ve had sits through THS and I love the concept. I’m here because I love animals and the idea of exchanging care for a change of scenery. But when you see people effectively monopolising a city through repeat bookings, it’s hard not to wonder whether there should be more mechanisms or different pricing to keep opportunities circulating more fairly.
I’m really interested in how others see this, because it feels like something the platform will have to grapple with as it grows.
Hosts cannot be prevented from choosing sitters they’ve already established a connection with. If the platform tried to penalize for not giving an unknown sitter a chance, the two parties would almost certainly take their transactions offsite.
All you can do is build your own connections with hosts and establish network as others have done.
I feel that there is a bit of a problem that THS is using these atypical cases as publicity for attracting members. There was a piece in The Sun with the title: “From Barbados to Buenos Aires, we’ve bagged over £100k of sun-soaked luxury holidays for free – and ANYONE can do it“. No, not just anyone. And a BBC travel program about THS also featured a tortoise sit.
You do realize that even the sitters “inside the loop” once were outside exactly like yourself. 0 difference between you right now and them at some point.
Did you put yourself in the shoes of the homeowners? Would you as the homeowner want to deal with a new stranger every single time you go away and entrust them what’s more valuable, IF the sitter you built rapport with, your pets love is available and willing to care for them again? Forget the homeowner, consider just the pet, isn’t it more comforting for them to deal with the humans they already trust and love?
No sitter is always available every time a homeowner needs a sitter. That’s why you can see, even for top tier listings that had the same sitter repeatedly, a different sitter had to take over at some point. In the few years I’ve been on the platform, seen many many thousands of listings, but not 1 that had only 1 sitter for all their dates.
Did you browse the sits these “inside the loop” sitters did, especially their first 10-20? It might not be as striking as it will be when you will be done with your first dozen of sits, but getting “inside the loop” is actually hard work and many times compromise.
Agree with that. When I first joined, it took me 12 goes to get a sit, now, 12 years later, I get most sits i apply for because of my many reviews. It’s like most jobs, start at the bottom , and work your way up. I still sit for that first lady who gave me a chance, when I had no reviews.
Not sure how long you’ve been a member @PollyJ but there were stacks of London sits over Christmas/New Year which would have been the ideal time to pick up a sit there. Some would not have successfully landed a sitter.
No one in life, much less on THS, has equal opportunity. That’s reality. And it’s unrealistic to expect a business like THS to try to enforce such along the lines that you’d like.
THS is just a matching platform. Would you expect a dating platform to offer you “equal” access to dates? And be miffed if people decided to date each other exclusively and locked you out?
If you have a problem with their marketing or advertising, depending on where you live, you might be able to register a complaint with whatever gov’t agency oversees accuracy for that, as a function of protecting consumers. But such a complaint is unlikely to gain any traction, because there’s room in such laws and regulations for companies to put themselves and their products and services in the best light without lying. That’s also reality.
You of course can opt out of such businesses by simply not buying their products or services if you don’t want to support them in principle. We all have such choices to make and can “vote” with our money.
I’m looking for a sit to care for a Pet Rock. Those outside the US might not know that some guy made millions a few decades ago by selling “ Pet Rocks.”
We receive many invitations for “high end “ THS sits that haven’t been publicly listed - hosts reach out to us directly because they like our profile .
So build up a good record of sits and you’ll soon find hosts reaching out to you to offer you sits .
THS can’t make hosts choose different sitters each time - if a host likes a sitter and the sitter likes the sit and is available they will naturally partner up - either on the platform ( with THS getting £18 for each sit or the Premium membership fee from both members ).
Alternatively after host and sitter have connected through THS , they may choose to do repeat sits as a private arrangement with THS receiving no payment and are more likely to do so if THS tried to force a new partnership for each sit .
The ‘it’s not fair’ approach doesn’t really work in the world of adult choices- it’s a stage we all hopefully grow out of. I don’t expect the world/life to be equal in terms of opportunities outside of the workplace - yes big corporations or govt organisations have HR departments that attempt to avoid structural prejudice like sexism and racism or other protected factors like having a disability. I can’t see that THS has any business meddling in personal choices made by Hosts or Sitters.
Unfortunately, HR departments and such laws have limited effectiveness. I support their efforts, but am realistic.
One thing about sitting is, ageism can work for older folks to a degree, because some hosts prefer older sitters, assuming they’ll be more responsible and/or have more experience with home ownership and such.
Telecommuters, retirees, solo sitters (especially older women) and couples can also have advantages when it comes to landing sits.