Came across this listing in Amsterdam and was taken aback by the rudeness of a French couple and their demands
I realise sitters have a free choice to apply but would you?
This was the listing
And a few reviews
April fools joke a bit too late?
Honestly, whoever agrees to sit for such people is almost as bad as the cheeky (more suitable words would be banned here) hosts. Why not just pay for accommodation then and forget about pet sitting?
⌠and the icing on the cake will be the amazing new booking fee, which of course makes sure that even such absurd sits go smoothly 
I certainly wouldnât do this !
A wee bit of hubris from my perspectiveâŚand it gives me great concern for all other aspects of the sit. Even with great aspects (location, animals I love, etc.) this demand would send me to the next offerings.
We were asked once (summertime in coastal Mexico) to pay for electricity use if it was above what they normally paid during that time period. I thought that was a reasonable request, as excessive or careless use of the air conditioning would quickly add up. We ended up using less!
Full disclosure: Iâve volunteered to pay for utilities and I prefer to pay the cleaning person, I request that frequently. BUT. What jerky entitled HOs would presume these extras? No chance Iâd apply. They arenât in the THS spirit of exchange, donât know why they get any applicants! Ugh.
The THS model requires a fair trade.
Asking for financial contributions is an âaskâ by a pet parent.
Was there a commensurate âgiveâ by the pet parent? Perhaps the property was spectacular, or there were zero pets, or other atypically attractive attribute?
We would only apply to such a listing if it were a fair trade. So weâd need a compelling reason to make a financial contribution. And, as we gain experience, we find that one red flag almost always leads to more - as it reflects pet parent attitude rather than a specific topic. Lifeâs just too short to deal with unreasonable pet parents.
@GotYourBack There is a cat there. I found the listing. Its tone is completely off putting. What I donât understand is that anyone would pay to stay there. Itâs not even volunteering, itâs paying for the privilege of dancing to someone elseâs drum.
My POV: Not if it were the last sit on Earth.
This is a complete turn off and super rude FOR ME. But i have to give them props for being really upfont about it, as it will be acceptable to some sitters.
What a rudely worded listing! The owner needs taking to task by THS but, of course, that is unlikely to happen. Surprised theyâve had sitters
They are already on reviewing mode!
Completely agree with @Maggie8K . No way!
Iâd do the sit, but I would charge a $5 fee for every poo I scooped out of the litterbox. Double for loose stool. $10 for any vomit. Of course, cost for dry cleaning to get all the cat hair of my clothes.
Maybe Iâll applyâŚ
(Edited in line with the Forum Guidelines)
I think people need to âapplyâ but just to tell these people how unwelcoming they sound 
@Cat-ophile Charge them for the travel costs too.
I would laugh at these âhostsâ . . . and then scroll on by. Hopefully theyâll get the sitter they deserve. 
I think I saw this one awhile back. They can demand these things because the location is such. If you are travelling to a place with high accommodation costs it still seems like a bargain. Low cost Airbnb. I would pay for the cleaner if I stayed to ensure no issues with review. Clearly very transactional hosts.
I wrapped a sit in Manhattan last week and the hosts were communicative, easygoing, friendly and appreciative. Easy sit with two cats in an upscale river view condo. The hosts offered me lunch and left me wine and a bunch of museum passes. Also told me to not bother cleaning, because their regular cleaner was scheduled on my day of departure, which no one even hinted that I should pay for. After, they promptly wrote me a nice review and said theyâd welcome me back.
For me, those are the kind of hosts worth sitting for. If I didnât have such hosts, Iâd just do non-sit travel.
I mention this, because just because someone has a good location doesnât necessarily mean they treat sitters transactionally or rudely.
It doesnât matter how spectacular the property might be, to my mind. (At what level of âspectacularnessâ are you entitled to demand sitters pay for electricity and cleaning? One mountain? Two mountains? A pebbly beach? A sandy beach?.. etc etc) The whole ethos of THS is a fair exchange. Once sitters start paying, they might as well be in an AirBnB⌠Oh, but wait: Thatâs what THS is now, apparently: A âfree AirBnBâ - only in this instance, not so free.
Outlier situations sometimes offer wonderful perspective.
To our knowledge, under THS terms, housesitters are prohibited from demanding financial payments (e.g. compensation for pet care) but pet parents are able to voluntarily offer financial or in-kind contributions.
@Mark_B, should equivalent THS terms apply to pet parents? Under equivalent terms then Pet Parents would be prohibited from demanding financial payments (e.g. utilities, cleaning) but housesitters are able to voluntarily offer financial or in-kind contributions.