Over a year ago I was injured by an aggressive pet and reached out to THS at the time but they were unhelpful. They never asked about the homeowner, the pet or followed up in any way. Fine, I got treatment and moved on.
A year later, I reached out to ask a question about the incident and suddenly they were interrogating me and automatically assumed it was the most recent pet I had sat for. I explained multiple times that it was not and they pressured me to name the actual HO/pet. Since I was negotiating with the homeowner to cover my medical bill, I chose not to do so at the time but told them the pet had several reviews of many that mentioned biting, swiping, etc.
THS moved forward with banning the most recent HO/pet despite my demand via email not to do so, that the pet was not aggressive in any way and it was a lovely sit.
This has been going on for a couple months now, what can I do? It seems THS is rarely helpful and yet they seem determined to punish the wrong HO despite my protests.
I honestly have no suggested strategies for you other than give THS the correct HO. THS rarely reverses their decisions. I hope you’ve saved all your correspondence.
As for the banished HO? Deserves a free lifetime membership once all is straightened out.
But I think I am losing neurons too fast because I am having problems getting to understand how THS got to ban the wrong HO.
Over the last three years I’ve read loads of threads on this forum and there are all sorts of examples where members service needed a gentle nudge from moderators before they take any kind of action. This would be a first and goes exactly in the opposite direction. I am having a hard time trying to believe this but, despite all my efforts I just can’t.
There must be some missing pieces. For all I know, THS very rarely ban anyone and that only after checking the facts not just opinions or mere one sided communication on the part of one HO or sitter, much less against their own will to communicate anything.
Would you mind clarifying some aspects of your post?
1 - The sit in which you were injured took place around May 2025. At this time, you contacted THS and there was no mention of the HO or the pet that caused the injury. You “moved on”
2- Around May 2026, you “move back” and get in touch with THS again to ask a question regarding “the incident”. I get that’s the sit in 2025 of which THS had no reference at all, no HOs name, no pet name… It’s in that conversation, that somehow you feel pressured to give a name and, instead of giving the details of the 2025 sit where you were bitten, which you didn’t want to share because you were negotiating with the HO to get the medical bill paid, you ended up giving the name of the HOs you were currently sitting for, and it seems you hope that THS would figure by themselves who the right HO were, you
3- The HO whose details you gave to THS has now been “banned” and you assume it’s because of your intervention or in spite of it, strangely enough it seems to work both ways.
If all the previous facts are correct, I can only assume these owners have had their account frozen, not closed, and THS are investigating a members’ dispute that perhaps you or someone else has actioned.
I am not a native English speaker but your English seems native like to me so I find hard to believe but maybe not impossible that you mistook “actual” in
for current or present???
Anyway, apart from @Maeve help which is the best option you have, here’s my answer to this question
Always try to communicate effectively and clearly. Communication is a two way process.
Don’t let anyone put words in your mouth, they can’t force them out as though they were extracting a tooth.
When you contact a service be prepared to give all the information necessary for them to help you. Don’t just hope they will find out somehow.
Finally consider that THS is a community and some serious issues go beyond a mutual agreement between hosts and sitters; the reason dangerous pets are banned from the platform (not their owners ) is to protect sitters from being harmed. The fact that one particular sitter gets economic compensation to pay medical bills doesn’t help protect future sitters.
I think it’s clear that the OP did tell THS about the incident at the time that it happened, complete with the name of the HO and details. Whoever at THS took this information apparently did not do anything, perhaps not even noting it for the record? When OP followed up more recently, whoever at THS they dealt with made the assumption it was OP’s most recent sit.
I reported internal audio/video recording some years ago. When I mentioned it here, THS picked it up again and stated that there was no record of the incident or that I had called. I do not know their protocols (then or now) for keeping records.
Basically, sounds like the sitter complained, but didn’t name the host. Offered clues and THS guessed wrong and banned the wrong host. So that needs fixing.
Pretty sure when OP first brought it up, the HO in question would have been the most recent sit. And when it came up again, THS looked at their most recent sit and banned that HO. I don’t think OP “gave” them the name of the HO who was erroneously banned - THS has/had access to their account and made an assumption.
Regardless, I hope THS sorts this out quickly and I agree that the banned HO should get a lifetime membership out of it. That’s QUITE the screw-up.
After reading your interpretation, I went back to read it again with that idea in mind and that’s perhaps what OP meant here
But I still feel that there are very important pieces missing in this puzzle.
How did that conversation with THS go that they jumped to the conclusion that the OP had been injured by the dog they were taking care of a year after the incident?
If the OP didn’t want to report the HO whose dog had bitten them because they were negotiating with them, were they perhaps trying to get general information about what their rights might be if they were bitten by a dog during a THS sit and there was an overzealous agent jumping to conclusions despite the OP protests?
Is is really possible to be banned without any evidence or even a formal complaint?
Can this situation drag for two months without either the HO or the sitter being able to fix it?
@Wellreadcoven , I think we all could benefit from some feedback here.
Not likely a dog considering dogs don’t swipe. Or at least when dogs swipe, it’s mostly funny and not very effective at injuring anything. A cat that regularly bites and swipes (as reported by multiple sitters) is a different beast and shouldn’t be on THS (but apparently still is).
UPDATE: Member services reached out and informed me that the banned HOs were reinstated! Thank you for the supportive and helpful comments! So very glad this was resolved!