Rather than the statement that “no changes will be made” could we please have some explanation of why THS thinks this is a fair and rational policy?
I’m referring to both the sitter having to pay money for the pet care AND for damage to the property not caused by the sitter and then hoping the Pet Parent reimburses the sitter.
I was in the financial world for over 20 years and know that this is clearly a MAJOR RISK and liability for sitters which should not exist.
To reiterate, rather than the statement that “no changes will be made” could we please have some explanation of why THS thinks this is a fair and rational policy?
I think that is a reasonable request, don’t you?