I am pretty frustrated with the new policy you have coming up. It appears that I will not be able to apply for sits unless I provide you with a lot of very private, personal, compromisable information. I have been house and pet sitting for 9 years. I just joined your site in October so that I would have more options, due to the lessened state of travel these days. I have belonged to the other three sites for 9 years. It is not right that I give you my money for a subscription, and then you change the rules. Thatâs like going to a restaurant, ordering potatoes and paying for them, and then they bring you peas and say theyâve changed the menu. That not right. I can understand if you want to change your rules before I renew my subscription, giving me the option of whether to renew, but you are not honoring our original contract. I am a good person. I am honest, not a criminal, and have high moral standards. So, itâs not that I have anything to hide, itâs that I donât want to put all that information online - which I know can be compromised and hacked. Also, itâs a matter of you honoring your end of the deal.
Please find an alternative. Give sitters and homeowners the option of how they would like to proceed. I have always loved the house sitting platforms, because they house a different bred of people. Those who trust. Thatâs hard to come by these days. Itâs a special thing.
ADMIN NOTICE: - Thank you again for your feedback and as Angela said earlier the team are continuing to monitor the conversation.
We are going to pause comments for a short break to give admins and moderators time to help other members across the forum who are contributing to other topics. This thread will be re-opened again shortly.
Hi @crondi55 Welcome to our Community Forum. As Mathew our CEO has said in his very informative post we understand the genuine concerns some members have and âŚ
If there are other questions you have please refer to the website blog and connect directly with our Membership Services Team who will be more than happy to help.
Thank you for being a part of our community and for your patience.
Hi @HuckPepper welcome to our community forum, thank you for your feedback and comments. Youââ find the link to a very comprehensive document covering the questions member are asking in Mathewâs post, for ease of use I will post here >> We have also clarified these points in our updated FAQs document - available here
ADMIN NOTICE: - Please note that from 9.00 pm Pacific Time today this topic will be closed, reopening at 11.00 am GMT tomorrow Feb 18th allowing members across all time zones to post and to give admins and moderators time to help our many other members across the forum who are contributing to other topics.
Thank you @Mathew-CEO for the response that has clarified some issues. Also, thanks to Angela, Vanessa and the forum team for their dedication and professionalism. But since so little time is left to allow compliance and many sitters were not even notified of this change, would it be possible to delay the mandatory deadline until there is a way to treat all sitters the same? It should still be voluntary until that point, as to not discriminate. I also still have many questions.
1)Consistency and fair treatment seem to be problematic. It seems like new potential Homeowner/customers in the US are wanting sitters to complete BG checks. However, under the new policy, sitters who are not in the US and not BG checked could still apply for sits in the US. Only US sitters without BG checks would be barred. How is this âprotectingâ the US homeowners, if the new checks are not enforced on all?
2)How are you determining who is a US sitter? Is a US citizen who retired to another country , but travels to the US to do sits considered a US sitter for BG purposes? Is a US citizen who is nomadic and changes their profile location to another country while doing extended sits there considered a US sitter? If a sitter currently lives in the US, but is a citizen of another country, are they considered a US sitter?
3) Do you have a comprehensive and consistent policy to determine what infractions will constitute a âfailedâ background check? I have never had any legal issues, but there may be some sitters who had minor criminal issues at some point. Are you just looking for felony convictions? Or are you considering DUIs, misdemeanors, speeding tickets, etc?
4) Are you considering accepting alternative options for bg checks which would not require ss#s or is that door completely closed at this point? I understand that if your name is very common, it may be needed, but for most full name, date of birth and addresses would suffice.
Thanks for your attention to this very important issue that impacts many of us who value our THS memberships.
I agree with @Southernsitter: who is a âUS sitterâ? I will be able to apply for US sits though I donât have a criminal check because they arenât available where I have bureaucratic residence. I understand if a houseowner doesnât want to have me, but what if they do? In that case I could do a housesit located in the US simply because they chose me. This is unfair to US sitters but also shows the illogic of a nationality-based policy at this stage of globalisation.
Or are you going to ban non-âUS sittersâ, whoever they/we are, from applying to sits in the US?
@Mathew-CEO, Thank you for taking the time to address the concerns of many members.
this is much better than your last contribution to this forum thread. And much better than not responding at all. However, I canât see any serious attempt to resolve our concerns. Sorry, itâs still marketing talk. And there are simple solutions as has been mentioned serveral times in this forum.
I fully understand that an investor of $10 million want to be sure to get return on the investment which obviously you hope to achieve to expand to the US market ($10 million does require a lot of new members). And I do see the need to keep a balance between the number of HO and sitters. So HOâs needs like having a background check for sitters should be respected.
What I canât see is that you insist on a mandatory background check with all the security issues addressed iun this forum. Why not let the HO decide if they only accept sitters with that verification? Itâs so easy to implement a button, checkbox, filter or whatever to provide this option to members at no (hardly any) cost at all. I canât see investors object against such a solution. Why would they? And, if you talk to your inverstors, just remind them of a old economical wisdom: it takes 10 times the money to get new customers than to retain your existing customers.
And there is another question which arose from your last post.
Why do I have to send an e-mail for asking Evident to delete all documents after check has been done. Why does that not happen by default? Makes me wonderâŚ
Maybe I am missing something, legal or technical issues. So I would really appreciated a clarification on my concers
Absolutely, @Susanne-Manfred makes a valid point. If automatic erasure of information occurred by default immediately after completion of the the verification, there would be fewer objections and greater compliance, as well as improved morale among the dissatisfied masses.
I also refer to my earlier post asking how we can be guaranteed that our request for erasure
of all our data has been honored.
ADMIN NOTICE: - Thank you again for your feedback the team are continuing to monitor the conversation.
WE ARE PAUSING COMMENTS to give admins and moderators time to help the many other members across the forum who are contributing to a variety of topics and conversations.
This topic will be re-opened for member contributions.
In the meantime answers can be found in the updated FAQs and on Mathewâs post above:
What exactly does âUS-registeredâ mean? Itâs in the faq we were sent to. Currently have an address there? Born there? Have a passport from there? please explain. @Angela_L
a) ONLY enforce this upon renewal for people who are already paid members
b) allow home-owners to decide if they want to limit their choice to a background-checked sitter.
I stand by my earlier statement that, having only recently paid, these are not the terms I signed up with, and itâs unfair to change them while still engaged on the same payment.
This is why I donât want to work with a US based verification company - I just googled myself and was truly horrified. During the 9 years I lived in the USA my information is now ALL OVER the internet.
USA members - google your name and take a look for a link to a company called www.nuwber.com - HORRIFYING! I requested removal of my info asap - but no doubt that just makes things even worse. Not only did it have every single address I ever lived in but it had info on all my friends too!
It really will be a case of me leaving if this is mandatory. And I assume for all of us that DO leave we can all request that ALL our data is removed from the TH too. - this includes all our pictures / profiles / reviews / feedback etc., I would not wish anything to be left on the site if this is all truly just to pander to new (USA based) investors.
You can tell the investors to go stuff it. I am not compromising my data privacy anymore.
