I’m pretty sure this wasn’t part of the Terms and Conditions before today:
“Sitters will … pay any veterinary expenses up front and request the Pet Parent to reimburse you for all costs incurred;”
and
“Sitters will … immediately contact the Pet Parent in the event of any damage to property and get their approval for repair. If, in the event of an emergency, you are unable to contact the Pet Parent, you will pay for the repair of any damage caused, and request the Pet Parent reimburse you for all costs incurred (provided you have not caused the damage yourself);”
The paying up front for vets fees was in before. It’s been a thread too. I always make sure the owners have an arrangement with the vet to pay for any treatment needed. Vets fees are huge these days and most people couldn’t afford it
I have a feeling that I accepted without reading the new T&Cs as I was logging in and not concentrating - my aim was to get to the forum, not the THS site at that time
Holy crap. 11,634 words is a novella.
How many people are going to read all that? Can we have a version with a table of contents, an easier format, a summary of changes…?
Ditto re having to accept in order to use the app.
@Jenny@lilo the app has an error- legally you have to provide the T&C’s to read prior to requiring agreement, the button to click to see the T&C’s does not work.
@Ksquared same for me. The arrow to the T&Cs doesn’t work on the app. @Jenny can you please arrange to have this fixed as a matter of urgency. It’s unlawful in It’s current state requiring customers to agree to T&Cs without be able to access them on the app.
This is so much worse than the booking fee. Please read carefully, attached is a screenshot of just a snippet.
They do not even highlight the changes, you gotta find them yourselves.
Also, members can’t access dashboard unless members click “Agree” to these new T&Cs. This is not only an unacceptable dark-pattern design choice, it also prevents members from managing confirmed sits that were arranged under previous terms.
So if a pet parents cancels the sit for no proper reason, or comes back earlier ect they might have to pay TH since the pet sitter could then request compensation for a hotel? They should pay such things from the high fees
Same for me, I couldn’t open the link to the new terms and conditions from the App and I had to ‘accept’ them in order to read an application from a potential sitter.
I agree with what has been said above. I am already paying a fee and as such have a contract with THS,. They have broken this by refusing me access to my account without my accepting new conditions I cannot read.
Now I have accepted the conditions - reluctantly - I cannot find them to read them.
The introduction of the £9 fee on top of the fee we already pay is pure greed. THS constantly tell us that the membership is growing fast - if that is the case why do they need to charge everyone more money on top?
As someone else said the fact that they have informed members of this extra cost JUST after their Black Friday deals have closed is cynical extortion.
I have now managed to open the T&C’s and reading through, it seems clear that they are distancing themselves from any responsibility whatsoever. e.g. I was under the impression that there is insurance cover provided within your membership fee, given that the vast majority of household insurers will not insure your home if someone you do not know personally is staying there. But THS (now) state that they do not provide any insurance cover for members and put all the responsibility back on the home owner (clause 5.2.10)
In clause 17.1 they distance themselves completely from any background checks, ID verification and criminal record checks, these are left entirely up to sitters to obtain and they clearly say these are not checked and THS does not guarantee them in any way. This effectively makes them open to fraud and potentially worthless. If this is the case they really should provide full transparency and detail of the checks obtained when requested, not just a tick next to a name.
All in all, the new contract leaves members completely on their own, shouldering all the risk (this applies to both sitters and hosts) and there are long clauses that effectively state we waive any rights we thought we may have, and accept there is no legal recourse. I think a Freedom of Information request is in order to find out how many complaints there have been about their service, and how many legal claims they have had in the last few years.
They state – 4.2.3. – that a background check is a requirement for sitter membership. I wonder if it said that before, because when I joined (2019), it only applied in the states. It was not required for Canada.
And again, not for owners too?
They certainly didn’t check references before either (4.2.7.). I remember asking people to write references for me, and thinking that if I had several e-mails under fake names, I could write my own. What is the point of references if they’re not checked?
Then again, this doesn’t surprise me… a) it would probably take way more staff than they have to check on everything that needs checking… b) it’s a litigious world; I’m also not surprised they don’t want to bear responsibility for being “just a matching service”.
Did you really read ALL of it?! Cheers, you did much better than I! I don’t know when I may have time to read through the 37-page novella. A Coles-Notes summary would’ve been helpful. My eyeballs are already square from following the booking fee rant thread
I asked ChatGPT to give me the overview on the T&Cs…
Big picture - what this contract is doing
They are very clearly trying to do two things:
Say “we’re just an introduction platform” - everything that happens in a sit is a private agreement between you and the pet parent (clauses 1.4, 2.1, 2.3, 17.2).
Push almost all risk and cost of anything going wrong away from TrustedHousesitters and onto: you, and the pet parent.
That doesn’t automatically make it unlawful, but it does make the relationship very one sided in their favour.
It also said, in regards to the inaccessibility issue myself and many other are facing with even reviewing the T&Cs in the app:
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015:
Terms must be transparent and accessible.
Hidden, unavailable or unreadable terms are not binding, especially if they disadvantage the consumer.
A trader must give consumers the information they need to make an informed choice.
A broken link/button means the terms were not accessible at all. That is a straightforward failure under the Act.
They really should a) make the T’s & C’s easily accessible b) provide a contents /summary page c) clearly identify changes.
Anyone who works as a journalist or for a consumer rights organisation could put in an FOI request…. any takers?
I am wondering if they should be referred to Trading Standards in the UK
No, I didn’t read all of it, I skimmed most of it, but i did read section 5 & 17 in detail. I know they’ve got to distance themselves legally (standard corporate practice) but if all they are providing is a platform I wonder how the extra fees (which are going to make them a lot of money) can be justified.
The link most likely didn’t work because your app was old. Updating the app seemed to fix it for everyone that tried this. It’s unfortunate that their app developers are so bad at their job but you also have the option to read the terms on the website. It’s freely accessible without needing to log in.
Not to mention they decided to roll this out immediately after running a bunch of Black Friday deals where users could have upgraded their membership to a level where the new fees don’t apply? That was absolutely intentional.
The new charges don’t affect existing members. So if they rolled this out before the black friday deals (which aren’t that special) then they would be costing even more people per sit charges than it currently does.
but i did read section 5 & 17 in detail. I know they’ve got to distance themselves legally (standard corporate practice) but if all they are providing is a platform I wonder how the extra fees (which are going to make them a lot of money) can be justified.