HO could have chosen to deduct for instance for letting the dog chew on stuff, having things in reach for the dogs etc. I’m sure some HOs would deduct the sitter for such if they felt they had given info on that.
This particular host chose not to, to focus on the positives and that the pet was taken care of - and that the sit in whole was satisfactory. So I would say just leave it as it is. If for nothing else so to ones own reputiaton. That alchol-thing I would delete from my post.
Although the pet parent has responded with what first appears to be humour, she most certainly has thrown the ball back into your court by claiming you were informed about keeping things out of the Lab’s way and that they are more strict with him, so don’t encounter the issues you’ve mentioned in your review. Of course, only you and the pet parent know how much of this is true and I guess this must sting a bit after what’s been a demanding sit for you.
In any case, I think that your review and the pet parent’s response certainly illustrates the situation from different perspectives, but the challenges you faced with this adolescent naughty hooligan dog have definitely been highlighted - even if they’re not mentioned in the listing - which will certainly benefit future sitters.
You did right to leave an honest and factual review according to your own perspective and so you’ve been true to yourself, which deserves a pat on the back! You have received a good review in return, so I hope you can put this behind you now and, going forwards, maybe choose sits where dogs are older, less strong and more placid.
I guess I am in the minority on this one. I am neither here nor there on the response-in-the dog-voice. I find that the HO is blaming the dog breed, the dog’s age (he is a 2 year old lab) and the sitter but isn’t taking much if any responsibility for poorly training the dog and didn’t reasonably disclose the dog’s behaviour in the listing or WG. Sure the sitter could have taken more care to make some items out of reach, but this dog destroyed his own food dishes and cushions.
The HO wrote about how she paid for the sitter’s travel, stocked groceries for her and allowed family visits. I am unsure if this was to portray the sitter as ungrateful. But the HO may not have done herself any favors as future sitters may now expect these things too
I understand this as the HO is blaming the dog’s breed, the dog’s age and the HO is blaming the sitter, and the HO is not taking any responsibility–because it is the HO who has poorly trained the dog and it is the HO who did not disclose the dog’s behavior in the listing or WG.
The HO gave me £20 to cover “expenses”. My travel costs were much more than that. Also I provided my own food as I did several internet shops. They left me short of toilet rolls which I resupplied them with a bag of 9. They also left hardly any dog snacks which I had to buy from my grocery deliveries. Plus I cooked them a chicken casserole on their return. I also left them extra made meals in the freezer. My friend had also done a drawing of one of their dogs.
A couple of days into the sit I noticed the feeding bowl was broken and contacted them to buy a new one as there were sharp bits on it and the thought of the chunks of plastic going through the dogs digestive system concerned me. They did not buy a new bowl.
At no point was the issue of the dog’s eating habits (as per dishcloths/socks) was mentioned to me prior to the sit. Nor was there a warning to keep things away from the dog written in the welcome pack. But believe me, it’s very unpleasant picking up a partially digested/fully vomitted sock first thing in the morning. Upon retrospect when I discovered chunks out of the table and a dining room chair I realised that this was not doggy separation anxiety but just naughty/untrained behaviour.
I did the review to warn other future sitters of my issues. I also told the HO about the issues both written and verbal.
So please don’t judge my reasons to do what I did. Too many judges who have not wanted to know the whole picture.
Hi @Lumpybum I just found your profile and the sit in queston. The host gave you a lovely 5* review and, to be honest, I think they responded with thoughtful humour to your negative review. My impression is not that it was a childish response. And I don’t think it is against you either. It appears to explain why certain things happened, some things that had perhaps been mentioned to you that you may have forgotten… but it is not bad at all. As an outsider looking in I see a sitter who was upset by things that happened, a host who gave a great review and then saw the sitter was not happy and tried to apologise and explain the dogs behaviour in a lighthearted but respectful way.
Remember that most future hosts will likely only read the 5* review (from the HO) on your profile. Some may cross reference to see how you reviewed as well but I really wouldn’t worry about this. I honestly would just take it as a learning experience and move on!
. What a plonker!