These answers are a load of twaddle and an embarrassment to whoever wrote the answers or should be. They make no sense whatsoever and and seem to be based on a total lack of knowledge and understanding about the issues being raised and the illogical nature of both the T&C and the realities of life.
Surely the thing to do would be to ensure that it becomes part of the deal that per owners should have some type of insurance for their pets which can be used to cover emergencies and illnesses and if not that they have informed their Vet that they will pay any emergency treatment either at the time if contactable and if not contactable then on their return.
If it is considered that this is not possible to enforce this then itâs no different to the current T&C because frankly they are also impossible to enforce. I doubt any court in any land would find these T&C enforceable in which case they are as well being removed!
The T&C with THS specifically excludes them from any agreement between owner and sitter (so they can step back and say nothing to do with us) however the same T&C says something else:
2.1. When you arrange a Sit via our Platform, you are entering into an agreement between yourself and a Pet Parent or Sitter (as applicable). It is entirely your responsibility to ensure that the requirements of the Home Listing/Sitter Profile are in line with your expectations and experience. We do provide guidance on how best to arrange a Sit, however this is provided for information purposes only and any arrangements you come to are part of the separate agreement between you and the Pet Parent or Sitter (as applicable). You agree that the requirements of Parent Parents and Sitters set out in clauses 5.2 and 5.3 of these Terms of Service form part of the separate agreement between you and the Pet Parent or Sitter (as applicable).
So essentially 5.2 and 5.3 are part of the agreement they say they have no part of between sitter and owner and the owner is obligated to pay you within 14 days and you are obligated to cover the vet fees. If they donât I guess you sue them on the basis they had agreed to pay in 14 days. I suppose this may be what THS is referring to when they say âif a Pet Parent does not want to reimburse the sitter for any vet fees that have been incurred, both parties will have to work through this issue themselves in order to come to some sort of agreement, or if necessary they can take whatever legal action they deem to be reasonableâ
Personally I think there will soon be a small claims type case to get either this money back or travel costs for a cancelled sit. This is potentially thousands for each scenario and smalls claims exist in many countries and cost very little. Plus robo-lawyers are getting pretty good at threatening letters and guiding a smalls claim process.
I completely agree with this. The HO/ pet parent is the one who has the relationship with the vet and should be expected to make the arrangements for emergency care.
Whenever i have traveled and my dogs have been in the care of my neighbors and friends, they have been instructed to go straight to my vet, who could make the correct determination regarding care.
In the old days, my vet would agree to just bill me; in todayâs world texting is so easy and I can quickly give my vet the credit card by phone (no matter where I may be in the world) so no one else should have to bear that burden.
The problem with small claims courts even if you win is collecting, especially across borders.
I canât see how THS can enforce this clause even if it does happen. Nothing has been physically signed, you have tonnes of cross country and border sits and laws and as @Maggie8K says, small claims will never collect. Simply the animals that are set to suffer. Stupidest clause ever!!!
Even though it cannot be enforced, it signals the wrong message to HOs and it sets up sitters for potentially massive problems down the line that could have simply been eliminated by correcting the terms snd consâŚ
agree @Purdie but theyâve point blank refused 
First, this is insane for sitters. We had no idea that was there. Iâd be interested in knowing when this was done or changed and why we werenât notified.
Second, there are conflicting conditions as 5.2.2. says the Pet Parent must âensure you have adequate provisions in place for veterinary care of your petâ. That eliminates the sitter having to pay up front. But since THS has written conflicting conditions for the sitter and Pet Parent, all youâll end up with is not needed hassles.
It should simply be the Pet Parent must arrange and fund in advance vet care and preferably have it in writing what the sitter may authorize.
@Wetravel I donât think itâs changed I think we all signed up to it when we joined THS ⌠I didnât realise the full impact of this clause initially but once I thought about it and realised how unfair it was, I raised it in this forum and which is when many others joined the conversation and said that they had not realised that this clause was there .
There were some others who said that they had noticed it previously and raised their concerns with member services but not received an answer to their concerns.
@Wetravel - the first time I noticed it was June 2023. I wanted to look at a listing and the system wouldnât allow me until I agreed to the revised Terms and Conditions.
I took that opportunity to read them in detail and that is when I noticed. I am unsure if the clause was in the older version.
I did bring it up on the forum but didnât get a satisfactory response from THS as to whether it was a new clause. Unfortunately I cannot find that post now.
To require Pet Parents to have a credit card on file at their vet and at an emergency vet is really not rocket science. They could also give to the vet IN WIRITING instructions for what can be done for the pet.
Those are simply the responsible and ethical things to do.
Based on your position with the company and your personal experience, I would hope that weâd here something back promptly from THS on this matter. However, itâs been 49 days since your post and this is an issue hanging over the heads of sitters every day and needs to be addressed now. I don;t think itâs unreasonable to get a truly prompt response adn correction of this issue.
OK, I was surprised to read about the sitter being responsible for paying for damage to the property - even if it wasnât the sitterâs fault - and then hoping the Pet Parent would reimburse the sitter.
I thought, âNo way can that be true!â
But it is!
Hereâs 5.3.6. SItter 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);
That is insane AND unfair!
The new Messaging and Applications seeking general feedback and suggestions should be a separate topic, not part of this thread.
Rather than the statement that âno changes will be madeâ could we please have some explanation of why THS thinks this is a fair and rational policy?
Iâm 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 âno changes will be madeâ could we please have some explanation of why THS thinks this is a fair and rational policy?
I think that is a reasonable request, donât you?
Hi @Wetravel we appreciate that you may have only just become aware of this conversation and so I will repost the last response to memberâs additional questions.
I will pass your comments and concerns on both matters to the team.
Angela
I agree @Wetravel that it is insane and unfair.
Also, it could invalidate their home insurance if a sitter decides to get something repaired. In many instances the HO will want to claim on their insurance and get an approved tradesman.
Not everywhere in the world is this possible. Our vet doesnât even accept credit cards and we live in the middle of Germany close to Frankfurt and not at the end of the world. Itâs not common to pay at the vet with credit card. We use bank cards and we donât set up an account. Things are handled differently here.
I agree that the pet owners are responsible for the payment but please be aware that not everyone lives in the US for example, where credit cards are used for everything.
This is still going on! And probably will till they close the thread. The thing about the conflicting language â sitters have to pay the costs upfront/ homeowners are responsible for the costs â This is all unenforceable and designed to keep THS from getting blamed if something goes wrong. Itâs confusing, conflicting legalize.
Clearly, THS wants to keep this between the sitter and the pet parent so they can never be blamed if something goes wrong. Therefore, this is solvable and needs to simply clarify, that HOs must leave sufficient access to funds or an emergency contact who can provide access to funds in a vet emergency AND sitters must take pets to the vet for emergency treatment.
THS SHOULD offer forms/contracts/sign offs and other helpful ways to insure this happens.
I donât like or agree with this clause, just like 90% of the sitters on here. Yesterday I read the full Ts and Cs on the platform (first time!). The HO also signs up to âfull responsibility for setting up payment and having adequate vet care in place for the duration of the sitâ & âyou agree to reimburse the sitter within 14 days if they canât reach you and have to payâ in there. THS are just covering their backsides on both sides of the coin, in case anything goes wrong so THEY have none of the liability. Theyâre asking both sides to cover all bases. For sitters, our solution is still to ask this essential question on all potential sits to be sure itâs safe to take them on 