I want to say a huge thank you to the sitter who recently left a very descriptive review for a sit I’d favourited sometime ago, suffice it to say that heart is now removed. Their review is exactly what you want to read, no emotions/judgements simply facts, the reply from the HO was ‘interesting’ to say the least confirming their lack of real concern about the sitter being bitten!
I won’t say who/where because I don’t think that’s allowed here, the important thing is this sitter is taking care of other sitters and it’s much appreciated 
I was about to mark it as a favourite until I saw the review.
2 small dogs in the UK?
Yes thank you to all the sitters who leave factual reviews and mark accordingly.
The THS rule about no biting dogs/injuries/harm should now lead to the removal of this HO. Hopefully the sitter reported them/opened a dispute. In any case everybody’s safety is dependent on factual reviews and any avoidance of the facts is detrimental to us all.
My reviews are primarily for an audience of future sitters… yes it’s nice to give feedback to the HOs BUT my priority is always tipped towards my fellow sitters. I wonder if HOs write reviews tipped towards fellow HOs…..
I’m sorry but dogs that bite a few sitters or just one sitter but not others is nothing about the numbers…. yes I’d usually on other matters agree with your numbers or ‘general trend’ approach but not in the case of a biting dog. THS states that one incident of harm is sufficient for the dog to not be acceptable on the site.
The interesting reply rather confirmed the sitter’s review….
This sit should no longer be on THS since the terms say
“5.2.4. ensure that no pets to be left under the care of a Sitter have ever caused a person or animal any physical harm (no matter how minor the injury);”
If only all members would do this. Leaving “nice” 5 star reviews for everyone, regardless of how bad things were, helps nobody.
We often agonise over reviews but at the end of the day we feel our major obligation is to future sitters so we try and build an accurate picture of the sit. Hopefully any constructive criticism is taken onboard by the home owner and (touch wood) to date we haven’t had any major pushback.
The only business here is THS receiving membership payments from private individuals (the host and the guest).
On paper, such behavior is not permitted, regardless of whether someone is willing to take the risk.
how do you read the reviews that are referred to in situations like this? If I click on the OP’s profile, I don’t see the review they’re talking about.
You’ll see the reviews of any Homeowner listing you see that’s got LIVE dates. However I can’t see the listing anymore, it seems to have disappeared.
The OP didn’t do the sit. They had it marked as a favourite until they read the review.
I’ve wondered about this requirement.
5.2.4. ensure that no pets to be left under the care of a Sitter have ever caused a person or animal any physical harm (no matter how minor the injury);
I do understand the need for this legalese but I wonder how ANY cats can be allowed on THS and still meet this requirement. Especially every cat that has passed through their little monster kitten phase. Even our mellow, older cats have drawn blood when they’ve been startled and bolted from a lap. Technically, according to this requirement, they shouldn’t be on THS. Indeed, I’ve never had any cat that could meet this “no harm” standard unless they had been declawed (NOPE!).