I get your point, but it is reasonable to expect the HO to have limits. If the sitter wanted to use the car to be an Uber driver, or to pimp s*x (can’t use the actual word) workers, etc, most people would understand a HO objecting. Those are obviously extreme examples, but one person’s unacceptable activity is normal to another person.
As with many problems in house sitting, better pre-sit communication on both sides could have prevented this, but it is hard to anticipate every niggling detail.
Spring break… Where? We don’t know where @DogMomster lives…
This time it worked out … sitter drove my car and agreed to my request not to take it out of the area and not to drive her friends around.
That said, I don’t think I will be offering use of my car again in the future. I get plenty of applicants who come with their own cars (though one is not needed here).
Don’t stop offering you car to sitters who don’t have one!
Just spell out your expectations and restrictions in your posting.
To be clear, systaran, I did not “change” anything. We had no contract re: use of the car until I drew something up the day before I left. Apparently, we each made assumptions. She assumed she could take my car anywhere with whomever she wanted. I assumed that the car would not be drive out of town and that she would not invite passengers.
To be honest, I feel that my requests were completely reasonable and prudent and would be expected of anybody asking to borrow my car. (and I’m quite certain that lawyers and insurance agents might concur)
Certainly, if there had been a head’s up re: a visiting friend or relative, I’d have said it was okay to drive them. Turns out though, that the sitter is a full-time nomad but has assembled a large number of similarly aged (relatively young) friends in this town.
In the end, she agreed to my parameters and took great care of my dog. I will, however, not be loaning my car to any more sitters.
Lesson learned. Thanks for your valid, but different, perspective.
For other hosts who consider loaning their car, it’s not a good practice to wait till right before a sit to discuss parameters for that. As highlighted in this case, it leaves room for misunderstanding and assumptions. For the use of a car, which might disrupt a sitter’s plans if specifics are discussed last minute, this puts the host at risk of losing a sitter, for example.
If I were a host with a car to loan, I’d draft up specifics ahead of posting any listing. That way, when you chat with potential sitters, you can discuss those, along with whatever else. Cars are are a potential deal-breaker, because so much risk is involved, especially for the car owner. I would never leave that till the last minute.
Did you ask the sitter to sign contracts regarding the occupancy of your home and use of every individual appliance? How about for their interaction with each of your pets?
Surely if someone is trustworthy enough for you to agree for them to stay in your home and take care of your beloved pets then that trust should extend to use of a piece of machinery.
Maybe I’m weird for not understanding people’s obsession with their vehicles.
It’s good of you to offer to cover the cost of a rental but I suspect the relationship with the sitter soured when you introduced the contract that stipulated restrictions on their freedom and movement.
Except that, if you are a bad driver, driving under the influence, or you just have sheer bad luck, you can even kill someone with that vehicle.
Not many homeowners are willing to deal with insurance when their car is driven by a stranger and something happens. For instance, if the house sitters are not very honest, the HO doesn’t even see them before they go back home, live in a different country (no jurisdiction there), how can a HO force them to reimburse the deductible?
Her main job?
I think you’ll find jobs are financially rewarding.
If the HO was paying the sitter then of course they’re fully entitled to have their instructions followed by pro sitters
THS offers very different model where there’s mutually beneficial relationship between HOs and sitters.
So many HO on this site think they’re doing sitters a favour by allowing them to live ‘rent free’ in their homes - they want a professional sitter without having to pay for one.
Geniune pet/house sitters are not motived simply by the chance to stay in a stranger’s home for free…. Caring for pets, meeting and helping like-minded animal lovers have a break without worrying about their pets and seeing a different part of the world are the primary drivers of most sitters. And these sitters can usually easily spot HOs who don’t appreciate the service provided by sitters
I offer a car; it helps widen the pool of applicants. I don’t have any particular concerns about how it’s used – I mean, I assume no one borrowing a car would smoke in it or whatever. If a listing offers ‘use of a car’ without parameters for that use being specified in the listing, I absolutely would assume I could pick up a friend and drive to the next town.
Well, You do seem to have a bit of an obsession with what some people decide to do with their own vehicles. You have reactivated simultaneously two several month old threads to bring up the car issue. You sure feel strongly about it.
On the other thread you say “that the HO should always put themselves in the shoes of the sitter when requesting their services.” I agree HO should put themselves in the shoes of the sitter and I equally think sitters should put ourselves in the shoes of the owners. I don’t agree on the last part because there is no “request of services” This is a mutual exchange and it’s not an owner “requesting a sitter…”, sitters apply to the listing that we want and we have the choice of not accepting the owners requirements and not accepting the sit.
@Newpetlover Bravo, well said!
I do apologise. I wasn’t aware there were time limits for responding to open posts in public forums requesting the opinions of others - particularly those that were pushed at the top of my ‘feed’ by THS. And I also wasn’t aware that I responding to two separate posts on the same topic was frowned upon. I apologise again - I should never have clicked on the post presented to me and bothered to respond.
But it is interesting that you would qualify responding to two similar ‘older’ posts as an obsession but I guess we all have a different take on these things.
And I’m sorry, but HOs are very much the party requesting the services of a sitter.
My general point still stands.
I find it bizarre that a HO would trust an individual enough to allow them to stay unsupervised in their home, surrounded by their personal possessions, and trust that same individual with the care and wellbeing of their beloved pets and yet somehow wouldn’t trust that individual with the use of a vehicle. A vehicle?
Each to their own. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
There is far less chance of significant damage occurring in the house than to the vehicle. We have shrugged off ruined pans but sitters not used to our type of roads and traffic patterns have been an issue when we have given them the use of our car. If there is serious damage, the insurer often writes off the car and only pays us what our (usually old) car is worth and then we have to scramble to replace it somehow. So we are very reluctant to lend our car now unless a sitter is used to driving in similar conditions.
lt’s interesting that no mention to the care of pets was made in this response…
The more I use THS the more I’m understanding where most HOs priorities apparently lie.
Vehicle > Home/Property > Pets
If someone is trustworthy enough for me to take care of my beloved pets and home in a remote location for several weeks (or even months) whilst I was out of the country on vacation I certainly would not be second guessing their ability to handle different ‘traffic patterns’ - I would actually want the peace of mind knowing a sitter has use of my vehicle not only in an emergency but also to allow them to get the most out of their stay and prevent ‘cabin fever.’
And I certainly wouldn’t expect sitters to to shell out hundreds or thousands in car rental fees just so they could deal with the logistics of remote living whilst caring for my pets at no cost to me.
Maybe I just set the bar higher when it comes to the people I would trust with my pets than others. But, as a sitter I wouldn’t vibe with a HO who deemed me good enough to look after their pets (for free) but somehow not trustworthy enough drive their vehicle occasionally to get supplies in the nearest town etc and make my sit both easier logistically and a more rewarding experience generally.
This isn’t how most of us here see it, and I speak from the perspective of both a sitter and a homeowner. Homeowners are no more 'requesting a service" than sitters are “requesting accommodation”. We’re making a mutually-beneficial even exchange.
No, those things have absolutely no connection. A person can be totally trustworthy and great with pets but still a terrible driver.
As our area has good public transportation we don’t have problem with not allowing the use of our car/motorbikes. Bangkok traffic most certainly requires more than being a trustworthy person to drive safely.
Of course they have a connection.
It all entwined in respect and consideration for the trust that has been placed in you.
If you’re a qualified driver with a clean license then you meet the the widely accepted standard to drive a vehicle. Hundred of millions of people are qualified drivers - it’s a fairly simple task to master. Much more simple in fact than providing care and empathy for animals.
Now if a HO wishes to assume that every applicant they receive for a sit is going to be a terrible driver - regardless of the fact that they might hold a clean driving license - then that’s up to them - but I certainly wouldn’t want to deal with HO who automatically assumes I’m terrible at anything.