Except the sender can also open the mail. And in this case the sender asked her to open the mail. The sender can open if not forwardable. And they did not do any forward mail option.
2 Likes
comment withdrawn
And the second overall point being that they were just given a warning and allowed to stay on THS. The first if disappointing behavior, the second is shocking.
6 Likes
Have a nice day, all.
What policy violation? What criminal offense? “Fraud” suspected by the OP is not fraud in fact. That’s for the bank to determine and pursue; we on this forum have only the tiniest sliver of the details about what really happened. As far as I can tell, the “fraud” on the HO was limited to using an HO’s address. That happens regularly in our experience and has never been any concern to us. I would hope that sitters would check with us first and, so far, have done so. That the sitters in question here did not ask matches their other shortcomings as indicated by the 3 star review they were given.
3 Likes
actually nm. I’m just finding this topic way too divisive, and I’m having a bad day already.
Do what you have to do to stay safe, everybody, and to spread kindness where you can.
2 Likes
Applying for a credit card using an address that is not your own is fraud, at least in the US. This is a fact. If you don’t have a problem with it that’s your choice, but it doesn’t change the law.
1 Like
True but the law requires a finding of fraud. There are a fair few bits that have to come together to get to such a finding. Until that happens (and it likely won’t), advocating for kicking someone off this or another platform based on your, mine or THS’s opinion is putting the cart before the horse. It’s hard to believe that THS would kick someone off over a suspicion of maybe attempted fraud.
1 Like
Using an HO address without permission for alleged fraud, applying for credit using a false address, should be sufficient info to get removed as a “trusted” house sitter. As an HO, why would I trust a service that allowed sitters like that to stay in the mix. LIke if someone is accused of attempting to molesting a child should remain as a preschool aide?
1 Like
Companies can choose whom to boot off their platforms, without the necessity of a conviction or legal finding. That’s why there routinely are terms of service.
With something like this, THS also would be potentially exposed legally if this has been reported and THS knowing allows a sitter to go on and do greater damage. In the U.S., cases can be pursued in civil courts, for example.
2 Likes
I have read most of this thread repeatedly and confess I am a bit baffled at the intensity of the response.
So your sitter got some mail.
I get it - they should not have used an address that wasn’t officially theirs to apply for credit. But that is not your problem. It is the bank’s problem. Credit follows the person and the social security number - NOT the address. I cannot see, at all, how you have been or could be harmed by this situation.
Many sitters are nomads, and we naturally have to get deliveries at the addresses where we are sitting. In almost every sit I’ve ever done, I’ve gotten some sort of delivery, whether from Amazon, a grocery store, or a restaurant. Inevitably I’m sure my name has ended up on mailing lists as a result.
So the homeowner gets some mail with my name on it and their address. So what?
Even if the sitter had gotten a credit card at your address, how could that have harmed you?
My identity has been stolen at least six times. Loans have been taken out using my social security number. There was even a court judgment against “me” for a debt a fraudster in another state took out using my name and social security number.
And if I got mail addressed to a sitter at my house, I’d probably just mark it “return to sender” and send it back.
The big screwup (maybe) in this scenario was the bank. Don’t let them make it your problem. In all six cases where my identity was stolen, the bank(s) tried to make it my problem. I threw it right back at them. They were the ones that accepted the application, they were the ones that did not adequately inspect the documentation, they were the ones that did not do their due diligence.
You say the sitters lied about their immigration status. How do you know that? Some credit cards allow applicants to use foreign credit history to get a card. Others are “secured” credit cards, meaning they put cash down.
I’m not saying you’re wrong - I’m saying I don’t see the evidence that they lied about their immigration status or earnings. What would you tell the police if you reported it? That they got mail? You call this criminal activity. What was the actual crime? What law did they break?
And speaking of breaking laws, if they were temporary visitors, and you live in the United States, then it was against the law to use them as sitters. I would think twice about calling the police in that situation as you might end up in more trouble than you expected and for different reasons.
To put your mind at ease, have your credit frozen (as recommended by others on this thread). Everyone - EVERYONE - should do that. Ever since I did that, the identity theft issue disappeared for me. I still check my credit reports periodically throughout the year. But please, PLEASE don’t let the bank’s huge mistake stress you out. All is well.
4 Likes
From my perspective, an allegation is too easy to make and false allegations common enough that taking punitive action without more than an allegation is problematic. We see enough disgruntled sitters and hosts on this forum that it is not hard for me to imagine false allegations being used for retaliation if they believed the other party would be booted from the platform.
To be clear, I’m not against booting someone from THS if they’ve attempted fraud. But I believe we don’t have enough of a full picture in this case to presume fraud was the intent.
4 Likes
I agree completely. If someone is found guilty of fraud by a judicial body, it will show up in their background check - and then they can be banned. If THS is expected to ban members based solely on accusations, the whole platform will come crashing down. Anyone can accuse anyone else of - anything.
A violation of the terms of service should of course be grounds for being kicked off the platform. There is nothing in those terms of service indicating that sitters are not permitted to accept deliveries at a homeowner’s address. Was it poor judgment to use that address, especially after the sit was over? In my opinion, yes. But did it cause harm to the homeowner? I cannot see that it did. If people got kicked off the platform for what some consider poor judgment, there would be nobody left.
I’ve had nothing but wonderful sits. Nevertheless, in every single one the homeowners did something that I felt exhibited poor judgment. Not repairing an external door that didn’t lock. Allowing a cat outdoors during mosquito season without heartworm preventative. Failing to trim the cat’s nails before I arrived, leading to damaged property and a deep scratch that required expensive medical attention. And on and on. Probably they didn’t always agree with my life decisions either. But that doesn’t mean they should lobby to have me kicked off the platform, or vice versa.
We’re a big, messy, wonderful bunch of different cultures and different opinions. That’s part of the beauty. If a member comes to actual harm, let’s rally around them and support them.
And if someone just disagrees with a life choice, let’s help them see different perspectives.
2 Likes
In the U.S., when you submit a credit card application, you’re expected to use your own permanent address. Banks require it and, even after a card is issued, they frequently do checks on whether the address is still accurate. That’s part of fraud prevention.
3 Likes
are you saying it is perfectly acceptable to use a HO for deliveries without asking? Since you mention the terms of service allows it? But to use the HO address as a permanent resident for an application for credit? Is that allowable under the terms of service?
1 Like
Is it? I asked an attorney friend and they said there are multiple requirements for something to rise to the legal level of fraud. One of those is actual or clear risk of harm. Another is “intent to deceive”. Clearly the police did not feel this met those requirements since they advised the HO to not file a report. If even the police did not feel this was a crime, what are we all talking about here?
It is clear the bank did not suffer harm. Possibly the bank had a risk of harm - possibly - but if so, that is the bank’s issue and the bank should (and did) deal with it. What actual or potential harm did the homeowner suffer?
It is also quite common in today’s nomadic age for people to view physical addresses as fungible and not particularly important. I’ve met folks in their twenties who have literally never sent or received a piece of paper mail, and don’t know how. Based on the information outlined in this thread, any lawyer worth their salt could argue that the person who applied for the card simply used the address they were staying at when they made the application, with no “intent to deceive”.
We cannot know the actual intent of the sitter. Brushing off questions about the mail could simply be because they’re uncomfortable talking about their private financial matters. We don’t know. Is all of this outrage on this thread an attempt to create certainty where there is none?
2 Likes
Absolutely. Sitters are expected to be self-sufficient, and deliveries are just part of modern life — especially post-pandemic. Asking permission would feel, to me, a bit immature — like someone in their first job asking their boss if they can go to the bathroom.
If a homeowner requires permission for deliveries, that’s a red flag for me. I once declined a sit in Louisiana because the gated community didn’t allow delivery drivers or rideshares. I thought about having to go into a store for groceries and thought “Nah, I’ll pass.” The only thing I regularly buy at a physical store is gasoline — and I’d have that delivered if I could. Do homeowners really think we’re shopping in person? Who has the time for that?
I’ve had only five-star reviews, repeat invitations, and frequent referrals to HOs’ friends and family, so it seems my regular deliveries are not distressing to most. To me, assuming a sitter won’t need deliveries is like assuming they won’t need hot water — just not realistic.
If this really is an issue for some homeowners perhaps THS can make it something in the amenities section, like “Deliveries not permitted”, that would be called out the same way “No carbon monoxide detector on premises” is called out in AirBnB listings. Because for sure I’d pass up any sit that didn’t allow deliveries (just like I pass up those with no carbon monoxide detectors).
3 Likes
I do all my shopping in person - because I live in a vital city and it’s a 5 minute walk to a grocery store. I expect sitters to see the proximity to grocery stores as a perk of my location - and I don’t care if they prefer delivery, but also, asking about deliveries is just prudent in any city (there is a lot of package theft in my city, even in secure buildings).
2 Likes
Well, as far as I can tell it is Address Fraud at the least, with intent to deceive a financial institution. And maybe others? A credit card statement can be used as proof of residence and to open other accounts. I could totally be mistaken and I’m relieved if I’m overreacting but it is still a slippery slope, especially since they’d finished the sit 10 days earlier. Lets say it’s totally innocent, why not just make up an address, or ask permission? My big question is: how did they plan to get the card, return to the house every day and secretly check the mail? I don’t know, we don’t have all the details but It sounds shady to me.
This seems to be an example of false equivalence—treating two situations as equal when their consequences and implications are vastly different.
In the case that sparked this thread, police were consulted and chose not to file a report. Filing one doesn’t usually require hard evidence—only suspicion—so their decision not to pursue the matter speaks volumes.
Our legal system is built on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I appreciate that THS upholds that standard, requiring real evidence before taking action. The THS platform and membership spans many cultures and legal systems. Acting on hearsay risks turning a mutually supportive community into a vigilante mob driven by fear and anger.
It’s worth remembering how quickly an accusation can travel and how slowly the truth can catch up. As demonstrated in this thread, once an accusation is made, it takes on a life of its own—reshaping reputations, relationships, and futures. The moment we trade evidence for assumption, we step into territory where anyone could be next.
A pause for truth protects everyone.
3 Likes