Hi this is my first post on the forum.
We let sitters use our car. They got a flat tire and said the hole is too big to fix so they have to buy a new tire. It sounds like they expect us to pay I think that this should be paid for the sitter as it happened when they were driving the car. The tires are in good condition they don’t have all that much in the way of mileage.
What do you think?
We’re sitters and yes they should pay if it was in good order when you leant them the car and now can’t be fixed and had to be replaced. Tough but fair. #stumpuppeople
Hmmm. Torn on this one. If it was negligence (hitting a curb etc) I would think it’s the sitters responsibility. If it were from normal driving (picked up a nail etc) I see it as part and parcel of owning a car and in that instance I would hope the HO would pick up the bill. At the end of the day it comes down to good will.
Hi @Prissie 
My view is similar to @Oztravels
A flat tyre can happen to anyone, even when driving carefully. If the tyre was damaged by a nail, road debris, or another unavoidable road hazard during normal use, I’d generally see that as a cost of vehicle ownership and would expect the owner to cover it.
If, however, the damage resulted from driver error, such as hitting a kerb, pothole at speed, or some other avoidable incident, then it’s reasonable to expect the sitter to pay.
One practical point: if the tyre is relatively new and the replacement is only needed because of accidental road damage, the owner also benefits from the new tyre going forward. That makes it a little different from, say, paying for fuel used during the sit.
Ideally, both parties should discuss it openly and focus on what caused the damage rather than who happened to be behind the wheel when it occurred.
The HO gets to keep the new tyre yes?
I think this pretty much answers the question for me…. although a donation from sitters if they felt in any way responsible would be nice.
As a sitter, I would be open to splitting the cost. It happened on my watch but you get all future benefit of the tire.
Unless it was caused by reckless driving, I would definitely not expect the sitter to pay. The sitter would maybe ‘benefit’ from the tyre for another week, while as an owner, you would basically “get” a new tyre at no cost.
If a HO let me use their car, I would feel obligated to pay half the cost. Depending on the length of the sit, half the cost of a tire would still be way cheaper than renting a car.
However, if I was driving the vehicle off-road, hit a curb, or was careless in some other way, I’d pay for the tire.
Also, if the HO had left nails or such on the driveway and this was the cause of the flat, the HO should be fully responsible.
Obviously the sitter.
They get a free car to drive and they stuff it up. Should be their problem.
Driving into walls, or scratches can also be part of normal driving, does that mean that if the sitter drives into something, or scratches it, the HO should pay for it?
If you hire a car at a car hire, if you return the car with a flat, they won’t say… It was normal driving conditions. They will charge for it.
The sitters are lucky to even have a car. I would never expect a car during a house sit, I would see it as a bonus if anything and if it was damaged under my care I would take responsibility for it.
I think you should pay for the tire. Flats happen. It’s not like something the sitter caused. They weren’t “at fault.” You lent them the car either as part of the offer of the sit or maybe to transport your pet.
There is no ambiguity here. I think if a sitter actually caused an accident or something due to negligence, that’s on the sitter. For example if you they left the key in the ignition and the engine running and ran in to buy a soda and the car got stolen. If you made the use of your car conditional and asked the sitter to agree to pay a deductible on ANY damage to the car then maybe, possibly, but asking them to pay to replace a flat tire just feels ridiculous.
If there is review drama about this btw I think you might as well cancel your membership because many sitters will be turned off.
Just speculation. Each sitter could judge for themselves what is fair.
If no negligence is involved we as HO would pay for the tire. If only because we choose tires that are not generic and a bit more pricey. And as some have said we would be the ones getting to use it.
True. I am speculating based on the way the OP presented this and what I imagine the review drama would look like. But I don’t think I’m wrong.
As with many posts on here, we aren’t always given all the facts, which can led to speculation.
Hi everyone, just a gentle reminder to keep in mind our Community Guidelines around being kind and respectful to fellow members, even if you disagree with them.
It’s a tough one but it is your car at the end of day, so I would pay for the tire, though I would hope the sitter would offer to pay a portion of it. It is part of the risk of loaning out a car to anyone.
As an analogy, if the washing machine broke down while the sitter was doing a load of clothes - it would be your responsibility to repair as it is your appliance.
If I were the sitter, and I was asked to replace the tire, I would price compare equivalent USED tires. And I’d buy that tire. As the HO, unless I’d been replacing tires that way throughout the life of the vehicle, I would prefer to buy a matching tire and be in control of that process. As it is, I bought four all new tires from Costco a year or so ago.
I like the washing machine analogy.
But anything is susceptible to being broken. If break a frying pan, a figurine, a plate, ect., as a sitter I assume I’d be responsible for replacing it. But if the vacuum breaks in the normal course of using it, I don’t think I should be responsible. I have no idea if the vacuum already had problems and using the vacuum to clean the house is something I need to do to fulfill an obligation to leave the house clean when I’m sitting.
The only times I’ve used a homeowner’s car is when I’ve been asked to in order to transport the pet to a dog park or take them hiking. I feel like if a homeowner requested that I use there car, I shouldn’t be responsible for non-negligent damage. But if I asked to use the car, it’s be a different story.
Sure, the homeowner gets the benefit of the new tire, but don’t they also get the benefit of the replacement for a broken plate?
This is why I will never use a HOs car, too much potential for issues.
A flat tire can happen to anyone and it’s not typically the result of negligent driving. I wouldn’t expect the sitters to pay the full cost of a new tire that the HO will have for years. At most they could maybe contribute a small portion of the cost. If it was something else on the car that needed repair, say the battery had to be replaced, would the sitters be expected to pay for that because it happened during their stay?