Which won’t be of much help.
I must really consider to stop with THS.
1 Like
I am flabbergasted, as I am sure you must be too?
Not wanting to shoot the messenger but who on earth makes these ridiculous decisions?
How can a complete stranger be deemed responsible for the payment of a bill amounting to potentially thousands of pounds?
There can be no doubt that any vet payment is the sole responsibility of the pet owner. If they can not afford it or have no provision in place to fund it then it is their responsibility to provide the name of someone who is in agreement to be a guarantor and contactable if funds are required.
Telling the petsitter that it is their responsibility is nothing short of emotional blackmail and frankly, stinks!
The scenario is this - I take a total strangers pet to the vet, and I am told it needs an emergency operation or it will die. The bill is ‘x’ thousands of pounds - my life savings. THS is telling me that I have to pay it myself crossing my fingers that I will be reimbursed if, of course, the pet owner has the funds to do so. If not, I am not to worry as the nice people in member services will offer their assistance.
Forgive me for worrying that a trusted house sitter could very easily lose a very large amount of money!
Surely it would be far more responsible of THS if they had a condition of membership that the owners had to agree to take responsibility for any costs incurred in connection to their own pet?
If THS want to be so charitable why don’t they agree to cough up the cash themselves?
I’m sure there is more spare money in the THS bank account than in the accounts of any of us sitters.
6 Likes
Bringing up the conversation, has made me more aware as a homeowner, of what I need to do – which is to bring back what I did in the past at the insistence of a previous paid sitter – a letter filled in with the sitter’s name, dates of authorization, pet names, and credit card info and phone numbers. What this does mean is I’ll need to make sure I have the sitter’s last name which is now an added bar to my sit. As I have indoor only cats, grabbing the letter, shouldn’t be a problem. This also means I’ll need the last name of sitter’s for the letter, something I’ll need to inform them of and make sure it’s not an issue for them. Furthermore, I might consider having a contract with sitters, even ones that I trust that they agree if they cannot reach me to bring the cat in for emergency treatment if needed after consulting with my vet or THS’s vet or if common sense says this is a life threatening emergency. Certainly emergency scenarios need to be discussed. Alternatively, in case I can’t be reached by phone, I could also give my credit card info to an emergency contact.
At the very least the rule should be amended, and explained. HOs should be required to have an emergency plan that includes payment. And if they can’t be reached temporarily – on a plane, in a cave – etc they should leave a sitter some way of paying for emergency life saving care. This needs to be standard and HOs need to be aware of it. Since THS has HO credit card information, I’m disappointed that THS won’t consider an option for allowing homeowners to allow THS to authorize payment for emergency care, even if it was tied to a premium tier.
As a sitter, prior to this discussion, I didn’t really think about what would happen if I couldn’t reach a homeowner and had to take a pet in for emergency care in terms of who would pay. There was always emergency info available, and I imagined that if I had to take an animal in, I would contact the HO and the HO would give the credit card info to the vet and all would be good. I didn’t realize until this was a discussion on the forum, that I would have to pay upfront and hope for reimbursement. This doesn’t seem like a great way to attract sitters. And it feels like something I will in future discuss with HOs. Having the discussion however could put me in a position where they don’t know where this is coming from and may choose the sitter who doesn’t insist that I have access to a credit card for emergency care. In which case, I won’t get sits, and will stop paying for the privilege of access to them.
Bottom line is savvy sitters and aware HOs will plan for this and figure something out, but as a company THS’s putting the burden on the sitter, may not be good in the long run for it’s growth plans past a niche market. It may begin to make both homeowners and sitters – especially at a premium level – wonder what they are actually paying for.
1 Like
I don’t think this will affect THS membership numbers at all, because for most sits no emergency vet has to be paid.
The problem is that not every vet or shop accepts credit card payments, especially in Germany but in other countries as well.
We do give our sitters a debit card with a certain amount of money in the account but they might have to withdraw cash, because the vet doesn’t accept the card. It’s the best solution we could find without having hundreds of Euro cash lying around in the house.
I hope no one actually thinks THS has the power to make anyone pay for anything. They are match making service at the end of the day.
If an emergency were to occur and a sitter paid thousands and the home owner did not want to reimburse, the sitter would be down a creek without a paddle.
This is a thinly veiled attempt to shirk responsibility and liability.
4 Likes
Scenarios that could happen in such circumstances, worst case: The sitter can’t or won’t pay and a pet dies. That could bounce back on THS terribly PR wise.
3 Likes
The onus should be on the homeowner to be responsible for expenses for their pet. A sitter covering vet expenses amounts to loaning money to a stranger we met on the internet. We know that THS will do nothing to ensure that sitters are reimbursed. They could ban the HO, but beyond that they have no power to do anything and a sitter could be out hundreds or thousands. Maybe THS should guarantee reimbursement. If the sitter is not reimbursed within 14 days, THS reimburses them and then deals with getting the money from the HO.
I don’t know about other countries, but in the US there are laws about terms and conditions. I don’t remember the exact legal terminology, but there is a law about T&C’s being unreasonable or unfair (if I get a chance I’ll check with my cousin who’s a lawyer). This would fall into that category without question and would not hold up in court.
Telling us to find ways to work around an unfair policy just says that THS knows this is an unacceptable policy.
The T&C’s should state that it is the responsibility of the HO to have a plan in place. If they are in a country or have a vet that won’t set up an account, the HO can make a plan with the the sitter. It’s not the sitters responsibility to front possibly thousands. Many, if not most, don’t have thousands of dollars available or would not be willing to go into debt or take thousands out of savings to cover medical expenses for a stranger’s pet (remember in US we already have to pay thousands for our own medical care).
THS seems to be doing many things lately to open themselves up to lawsuits and/or extremely bad press. Companies that stay around long-term evolve and change as needed. THS seems to just dig in and refuse to change. Personally, I was already only booking out until the end of my membership year. I won’t be renewing due to the way that sitters are treated by THS.
6 Likes
Hi Angela,
First of all: you know, that we all know, that you are only the messenger. But, unless the CEO starts communicating with its members directly, or a PR rep, we will always need to reply to you when you bring bad news. And you brought Really bad news in this case.
This stubbornness from THS to listen to members sounds to me like there is a much bigger issue at hand: first of all, THS took ages to get back to us, and the only reason you (THS) did end up getting back to us, is because members actually followed up and wanted answer, to a point where it would have been ridiculous for THS to avoid them. They did not let you off the hook. Good on them.
It’s very easy for a company to say “yes yes we are working on it! don’t worry!” when we all know the company is either hoping we will forget about it, or hoping we will move on without an answer.
Thanks to @Silversitters, @Purdie among many others, the moderators of this forum were asked for constant follow up, and members were sure, this clause would be changed. Because it was such a ridiculous clause and we thought that whoever wrote it, must have been inexperienced at the beginning of THS many years ago. A little bit like the code the platform is built on.
The fact that this specific 5.2.3 Clause will remain intact and won’t be amended in the favour of the sitters, tells me that THS is now officially admitting they could not be bothered about their members and treat them as nothing much than a revenue stream among others: this specific clause definitely endangers the wellbeing and the life of pets, should a pet sitter not have the funds to pay and the owner be unreachable, when a life of death situation happens. Should this situation happen, it will be very clear that THS is protecting itself legally, itself, and itself only, in a way that only THS’ legal team can understand: we aren’t asking THS to pay for sitters in case of an emergency, we are asking THS to make sure the actual owners pays for their own pets. It’S VERY different, therefore THS is losing absolutely nothing, financially speaking, in case of an emergency, and would be protecting the sitter who has strictly no recourse in case something bad happens. The situation where the vet is asking if we want to put down a pet because we don’t have the funds to pay for the emergency procedure, when in reality, the owner is unreachable but would have had the funds to pay (or at least, would have made the decision themselves, to not go ahead with a costly emergency procedure), is the worst case scenario…but things happen.
This is by far the worst decision this company has made, in my opinion and my experience. By far. Honestly? Shame on THS decision makers, or whoever said “no we aren’t touching anything in the T&C, this situation is not very likely to happen anyways, so moving on to much more important subjects such as video integration and messaging stuff” .
4 Likes
Hello everyone
Thanks so much for giving us some feedback in response to our update. We know this is an important issue for you, and we appreciate the time you’ve taken to help us understand how you’re feeling.
I just wanted to make sure you all knew we’d heard your questions, comments and concerns. These will be taken back to the team, to see what further information we can get for you.
As you know, it’s not an immediate process, but we’ll do our very best for you, and would be grateful for your patience in the meantime.
Thanks again,
Angela
@Angela_L The discussion this morning is about the result of this issue going to the team. After over a month we are being told that there will be no change to the T&Cs. So, are you saying it will go back to the team again? It seems they’ve already made a decision on this issue. I understand that you are not the one making the decision about this, but your post feels very much like it’s just to placate us and put an end to the discussion.
2 Likes
I have now replaced the “About” section in my profile with this text:
THS has in its terms and conditions clauses about sitters being obliged to cover ANY emergency veterinary medicine and ANY emergency repairs of damage to the property (5.3.5 and 5.3.6). I do not regard myself to be bound by these clauses.
6 Likes
This whole discussion has made me want to look at the terms and clauses, which I don’t remember actually signing. I know when I combined my membership I didn’t have to sign any additional material so I don’t know how bound any of us are by any of these rules. Where is a link to the terms of conduct. I can’t find it anywhere.
@Angela - when you go back to the decision makers could you also ask them to reconsider point 5.3.6 which could have even costlier implications for the sitter.
5.3.6. 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);
1 Like
Reality is, THS will not be able to enforce the terms, because they’re written in an overly broad way. Plus, practically speaking, THS is pretty toothless in general, even for much more common and basic problems that arise from sits. We see that frequently in the forum.
When it comes to hosts, if you want to make sure your pet is taken care of in case of emergency vet care, make arrangements ahead of time. For instance, you could leave money with someone local that you trust. Or that person would be willing to pay if the vet didn’t accept credit card payment from you at a distance or you’re not available. Don’t count on your sitter to be able to pay.
If you know personal finance, most Americans for example don’t even have the cash to replace a major appliance immediately in case of a breakdown. So don’t delude yourself that someone will automatically pay a big vet bill, much less for significant household repairs for you.
If you want greater peace of mind, hire a professional sitter who’s bonded / insured. Don’t look to volunteers like on THS for that.
1 Like
I’d love to know too! I joined in 2015…I have absolutely no idea when I had to agree to terms & conditions. Not saying it wasn’t there, I just would really love to know at what stage a new member needs to agree to terms and conditions. And what does it look like.
2 Likes
@Maggie8K True, not enforceable by THS.
But it might make the sitter vulnerable to claims by the home owner, when the sitter did not get storm damage etc fixed.
1 Like
Good luck with trying to sue someone for say a few thousand dollars across jurisdictions like states or countries. It’s just not a practical thing to do. For instance, even if you theoretically won such a suit, collecting the damages would be near impossible. (This comes up with freelancers for instance all the time and they get stiffed because suing AND collecting is impractical.) Like in the U.S., there is no such collection mechanism in most states. You’d have to hire yourself an agency or such to chase someone down and if they have no money it’s not as if you can put them in debtor’s prison, LOL.
This is also why sitters shouldn’t pay anyone’s vet bills. If they want to stiff you, you’d have an insane time trying to get them to pay.
2 Likes
There’s a link in Angela’s comment earlier today but here it is again.
Enjoy all the typos.
1 Like
At some point it becomes worth it. Sweden does have a collection mechanism (“Kronofogden”). I am not rich by any means but they could take my house. Added: also if an HO lived in a different country.
That might be worth their legal costs if an HO felt that I should have done more to fix damage to their house. So I would also need to lawyer up.
Of course all this is quite hypothetical. But why won’t THS strike such absurd clauses?
THS sits frequently happen across borders, so the likelihood of that actually working would be super low. But if you know that can happen in your country, then I’d suggest not sitting there if the small chance is something you’d worry about. In the U.S., I have no concerns about that. And do I fear that some other country will track me down and force me to pay an unwarranted bill related to a THS sit? Not at all.
In reality, the worst thing that THS can practically do to any of us is deny us membership. And THS already seems to be loathe to do that even in some pretty serious circumstances, based on various forum posts.
As for why not strike such a clause, I can’t speak for THS, but I’d guess that the clause offers pet owners a false sense of security. Ultimately, if a sitter won’t pay in an emergency, the vet can either treat in good faith that the owner will pay or the vet can refuse treatment. If I were the pet owner, I’d not leave that to chance.
1 Like