Transparency of Listing

Sitter Questions, Advice & Chat
1

Hi all,

This is my first time posting, and I’d really appreciate hearing about others’ experiences.

After around 20 sits (some repeat and not all through THS), we’ve noticed a growing trend: listings that don’t fully reflect the expectations outlined in the house guide—or worse, guides that aren’t shared until just before the sit. By then, you’re committed, and it leaves little room to make a fair, informed decision.

We completely understand the omission of small or incidental details, but this year alone we’ve had to withdraw from two sits due to undisclosed deal-breakers.

We’re very clear in our sitter profile about the kinds of things that don’t work for us—we’ve listed our deal breakers specifically to help homeowners assess if we’re the right fit. Still, we’ve found ourselves in situations where key information was withheld, leaving us in a bind.

Example one: The listing described a “cute house.” We know that usually means compact, which is fine—we love cozy spaces. But when we arrived, we discovered half the home was locked off, leaving us with little more than a bedsit. On top of that, laundry facilities were shared with an Airbnb operating in the basement. None of this was disclosed beforehand. Had it been, we could have made an informed decision.

Example two was more serious and prompted us to contact THS. The sit was on a beautiful island in Washington State with the cutest dog. We were excited, though it took five weeks and THS intervention to even get a response from the homeowners for a video chat. Red flag, we know—but we gave them the benefit of the doubt as first-timers.

When we finally connected, they impressed us by asking what would make our stay enjoyable. We were clear: transparency was key. They assured us the listing reflected the full scope of expectations.

The next day, we started receiving “notes”—each one a slightly larger ask. It built up to:

  • Cleaners arriving for 2.5 hours the day after we got there, and because the owners were concerned about COVID, we’d have to vacate the property during that time.
  • A 4x/week dog “playdate” with a friend who lived 30 minutes away.

Individually, these things may seem manageable. But the pattern, especially after we’d specifically asked for transparency, raised red flags.

When we reminded them of that request, they responded: “Well, we should put all our cards on the table now then.”
You think?

The final straw was discovering that the house had no security system and none of the windows had locks—not broken locks, no locks at all. The house was built that way. When we raised our concerns, they dismissed them, saying the island was “very safe” and they hadn’t considered that it would be an issue. But our point wasn’t about fear—it was about informed consent and basic safety considerations, especially for solo or female sitters.

We reported the security issue to THS, stressing that it should be clearly stated in the listing. Sadly, the listing went back up and—no surprise—none of this was added.

We’re confident we made the right call in pulling out, especially since it felt like more surprises were on the way. That said, when you do cancel a sit, THS sends an automated warning reminding you that withdrawing may carry consequences for your account. Yet there seems to be no equivalent mechanism to hold homeowners accountable when they misrepresent a sit or fail to disclose critical information—even when sitters have made their own boundaries explicitly clear from the outset.

We’re wondering: Has anyone else experienced this?

Some HOs are incredibly upfront and transparent, which we so appreciate. But - intentionally or not - it feels like key details are being withheld with increasing frequency and that undermines the trust this platform is built on. How do you handle house guides that don’t match the listing, especially when they arrive very late in the process?

Thanks in advance!

1 Like
2

the HOs will likely feel the pain, but in a different way. multiple withdrawn applications – or even a sitter arriving, discovering what they didn’t know, then potentially leaving early or at least giving a bad review are all likely outcomes that will leave them scrambling or struggling to get future sitters.

in their defense, it seems they genuinely didn’t think to disclose this. they didn’t realize it would be relevant to some sitters. (which doesn’t excuse their failure to add this detail to the listing after you pointed it out)

Unfortunately, that doesn’t solve the problem of how to respond when an HO does leave out critical details or oversteps in their requests they make of you (after confirming or even starting the sit). Being proactive about asking explicit questions before committing to the sit is one preventative measure that it sounds like you have a grip on. Otherwise, it sounds like you handled each of these cases pretty well. If it’s a problematic fit, it’s better to cancel early than not.

I don’t know exactly what the full protocol is for how THS handles this, so I want to be careful about my response: But I imagine that for few and reasonable cancellations, there would be minimal impact felt. Of course, there should be account consequences for sitters who flippantly cancel on HOs – so it’s good that THS sends that warning and pays attention to sitters who cancel. But for sitters who take the responsibility seriously, have a generally solid track record in the platform, and can demonstrate that their reasons for cancelling a particular sit are appropriate and were well-handled, I imagine little-to-no impact to your account?

3 Likes
3

Hi @JohnnyT ,

quick question… while I was reading you, I was going to suggest it until I got to this one below:

Was this videochat :backhand_index_pointing_up: before or after accepting the sit?
I’m asking because, as sitters, the video call is the only tool we rely on to confirm a sit (or not) after the initial conversation. We wouldn’t accept any offer without the full context and information that a face to face call provides.
What is said, and what is left unsaid, during that conversation is what guides us and helps us follow our intuition.

Communication is key, and trusting your gut is the first rule.

1 Like
4

@JohnnyT

Many of us will pull out of a sit if we don’t get a WG promptly after confirming the sit . We make this clear before we accept the sit so there are no misunderstandings.

We definitely won’t confirm the sit without either a video chat or pre visit. If hosts aren’t willing to arrange this promptly ( usually within 24 hours of our application) we will withdraw our application.

There is a possibility that we missed out on a great sit with this approach . However we also (so far ) have not had unexpected surprises on arrival about the accommodation or pets in 30+ sits . This includes 6 sits with hosts new to THS .

We are extra thorough in our video chat discussions with hosts new to THS . As there are no reviews from previous sitters we have only the listing and our video chat to inform our decision .

Hopefully your reviews of both these sits clearly and honestly outlined the issues for future sitters .

10 Likes
5

You sound like an intelligent, responsible person and if this sit was this uncomfortable and problematic for you , you did the right thing and left the sit. I am sure you did the responsible thing giving them the required time TH wants you to give them to find another sitter. Being a solo woman sitter, not having locks on the windows would have bothered me unless I was sitting for three Rottweilers. I would have welcomed the cleaning lady though, although I would have liked her the day before I left so I don’t have to clean as hard. Probably on a schedule and they have a contract. Taking the dog for playdates without informing you before you arrived should not have happened. All the things you mention should be in the profile, long before you apply and have to wait for the WG. Just explain all this in your review and I think you will be fine.

1 Like
6

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond in such detail. I absolutely agree that sitters who cancel flippantly or irresponsibly should be monitored, and that THS is right to send warnings and keep an eye on patterns of behaviour. The issue becomes trickier when a sitter is trying to do the right thing by stepping away from a sit that clearly violates THS expectations—especially around transparency, safety, or a host changing the terms of the sit after it’s been confirmed. In those situations, given that you can’t formally cancel the sit unless the HO ‘releases’ you - even if you’ve raised legitimate concern - your ability to exit in a timely manner depends upon the hosts cooperation. This process allows the homeowner most of the power. And while THS might ultimately support you if you escalate it, that process is opaque, and it puts sitters in an emotionally and logistically vulnerable position. Even though we have a clear record on the platform and communicate our deal-breakers upfront (both in conversation and in our profile), we’ve still found ourselves navigating situations where critical details were withheld until the last moment. In those cases, the warning message you receive when pulling out—about potential account consequences—feels a little out of step with the nuance of the situation. Especially when the breach is coming from the host’s side. It would be great if there were clearer, more balanced protocols in place when cancelling for justified reasons, so sitters don’t feel like they’re risking their standing just for advocating for themselves.

5 Likes
7

Yes, I totally agree—they didn’t seem intentionally deceptive, and I think they genuinely didn’t realise how important that kind of detail would be to a sitter. But that’s also part of the problem. It’s precisely because everyone has different comfort levels that disclosure becomes essential. What’s a non-issue to one person can be a deal breaker for someone else.

That’s why we’ve gone out of our way to include clear deal breakers in our profile—so homeowners can assess fit before accepting or confirming a sit. It reads:

We both value clear communication and well-established plans, and in return, we offer a reliable, conscientious presence in your home. With that in mind, here are few key preferences and dealbreakers to note for compatibility:

  • We kindly request homes to be clean upon arrival.
  • We ask for appropriate space to be made available in the pantry and fridge/freezer, as well as the bathroom and bedroom for toiletries and clothes.
  • We only accept sits where the home will be free of other family members, roommates, tenants, or visitors during our stay (exceptions include scheduled cleaners or gardeners, if notified and agreed in advance).
  • We do not accept sits involving indoor cameras, aggressive pets, or undeclared medical conditions in pets.
  • We ask that your profile accurately reflects the sit. There should be no surprise requests in the house guide.

These preferences align with Trusted Housesitters’ terms and conditions and are shared here for transparency—particularly for pet parents who are new to the platform and those unfamiliar with the guidelines. Setting clear expectations ensures a smooth, positive experience for everyone involved and minimizes any potential disruptions to your travel, or our sit, that could easily be avoided.

But that only works if they read the profile and are upfront in return.

What felt most disappointing was that even after we explained why something mattered to us, the information still wasn’t added to the listing for future sitters. That’s a missed opportunity for the homeowner to align expectations and build trust—and to avoid a repeat of the same issue down the line.

3 Likes
8

Hi @Skylos – I hate to admit it, but yes, we accepted the sit before the video meet. The couple seemed so lovely (don’t they always?) and, as it was their first experience with THS, we were trying to show patience and understanding with the technical issues they were having. They expressed concern that they might “lose” us if we waited too long, and wanting to be supportive, we agreed to confirm and schedule a chat as soon as possible.

In the end, it actually took THS stepping in to prompt any communication. When we did finally speak, the video chat went well—but it was afterwards that the “Oh, and by the way…” messages started coming in, each one a bit more significant than the last.

We’re frustrated with ourselves for relaxing our own policy, especially since—like you—we usually never agree to a sit without meeting first. But even in the cases where we have met beforehand, we’re still noticing a rise in discrepancies between listings and what’s revealed later in the house guide or follow-up messages.

I’ve seen other forum threads where sitters have found themselves in totally unacceptable situations for similar reasons, and it really makes me wonder: how are people coping when the reality of a sit doesn’t match what was agreed upon? What recourse do we actually have in those moments?

2 Likes
9

Hi @Seniorsitter,
We actually didn’t end up sitting either of those homes—we cancelled both before the sit began due to the issues outlined. Because of that, we weren’t able to leave a review, which is part of the frustration. Situations like these can fall through the cracks when sitters back out early, even for very valid reasons. It’s exactly why we think more upfront transparency in listings—and earlier access to house guides—would benefit everyone involved. I really was quite disappointment to see their listing reappear in its original form and lacking any of the insight that sitters should have prior to committing to a sit.

5 Likes
10

@Silversitters my apologies. I was so eager to respond I pressed the wrong @label. really appreciate your response, so thanks again!

1 Like
11

Hi @Seniorsitter,

Thanks for your thoughts—and I completely agree. Especially for solo female sitters, some of these issues go well beyond personal preference and fall squarely into the realm of basic safety.

Just to clarify, we didn’t actually complete either sit, so unfortunately, THS doesn’t allow reviews unless the sit officially takes place. And that’s part of the problem: when a sitter responsibly cancels due to legitimate concerns, there’s no way to leave a public record to inform or protect future sitters. These sits essentially vanish from view—even when the cancellation stems from serious, undisclosed deal breakers on the homeowner’s end.

For context, we raised our concerns on April 11 and made the decision to withdraw on May 5. We encouraged the homeowners to update their listing and felt this gave them ample time to make alternative arrangements. It’s just a shame that, without a review, the next sitter may walk into the very surprises we were hoping to avoid.

2 Likes
12

I completely agree with you that transparency is essential, and these people should update their listing and have a great Welcome Guide in a format which can be sent by email for the prospective sitters to review BEFORE confirming, if the sitter requests such.

In general, some of these things can be sorted out during a video chat. Especially for any sitters who “work from home,” the owners should reasonably understand that vacating the home for 2.5 hours on a workday might be a lot to ask, and taking the dog to a playdate 4 times per week might be impossible.

Without sounding too rigid, I think sitters can ask questions during a video chat.

“Since I work from home and need to be on my computer from 8 am to 5 pm, it is important for me to understand my responsibilities.” This forces the owner to think through a typical day in the life of their dog/home and share/discuss with you.

“Since I work from home full time, I need to have a quiet, dedicated space to work without interruption. Do you have such a space? Do you have any scheduled cleaners, maintenance people, etc who plan to come into the home during my stay?”

Owners have needs.
Sitters have needs.

Good communication is necessary to see if the match is good.

13

It is annoying when extra tasks and details sneak in.

I don’t really agree with your view on security though. I would not assume a security system (burglar alarm?) as they aren’t all that common in the UK. Nor would I think about window locks as there are plenty of old unlocking windows (usually a latch and catch but no actual lock) around. There’s one window in my house with a lock, in a newish extension, but otherwise, nope. Different things are normal in different places - it honestly wouldn’t have crossed my mind either if I were a HO. It sounds like it’s the norm for where they live too.

It reminds me of a relative visiting my home for the first time. She was aghast at the thought of my living here alone, rural, no streetlights, etc etc - she would be scared living here. All the while I was thinking yep, but you need your burglar alarm and are constantly worried about all the car thefts in your street, living in an urban area. The worst that ever happens where I live is maybe a shed break-in every couple of years, and some fly tipping. Complely different risk profiles. My home is safer than hers despite its lack of security features.

3 Likes
14

As a sitter, there are times I see dealbreakers in the listing. But sometimes I’m unaware of the dealbreaker until the chat. And that’s not necessarily because the host was being evasive. You really can’t go through everything in the listing. It might mention gardening but not the massiveness of the garden for instance. Or medications, but skip that the meds require a super strict schedule.

I recently accepted 3 sits – 2 from the same host, without a chat. They both sounded delightful and exactly what I need for the summer. But both hosts show a kind of nonchalence about meeting to talk. I’m glad we finally arranged times to meet and have a list of questions – mostly logistics – for each – but there is that lingering fear that even though I confirmed something will come up that changes everything. Always, always, always have a chat first!

3 Likes
15

Hi @PVGemini . Thanks for your response. I couldn’t agree more with your comment about both sides having needs to consider. I also really appreciate your suggestions around how to approach the video chat—those kinds of prompts can definitely help steer the conversation in the right direction. Communication is key.

That said, I do think the responsibility for proactive disclosure should rest with the homeowner—not just on the sitter to extract the truth through well-crafted questions or subtle interrogation. THS policies exist for a reason, and encouraging both HO’s and sitters to familiarise themselves with those guidelines would go a long way in preventing mismatches.

Homeowners know if their dog takes medication, if third parties will be on the property, or if the house lacks basic security features like window locks. That kind of information should be shared clearly in the listing or sent early via the Welcome Guide—especially when a sitter’s profile (like ours) outlines specific deal-breakers.

We’re happy to accommodate all kinds of setups—but only when expectations are transparent before we commit. When key details come out after confirming, it stops being about compromise and starts to feel like a bait and switch. That’s really the issue we’re trying to highlight here. Twenty sits down and we’re still learning! :zany_face:

16

Hi @UKSITTER1
Thanks for your reply—and you’re absolutely right, I did mention a security system, but I realise now I wasn’t clear. What I meant to flag was that the windows couldn’t be securely closed, not that there was no alarm system. That one’s on me for not wording it more precisely.

In 58 years, we’ve never stayed in a home where there was no mechanism at all to close the windows from the inside—not even a latch or catch. That’s what we found unusual and, depending on the sitter, potentially problematic. Most people expect to be able to lock the doors at night; that feels a bit pointless if the windows can’t be latched shut too.

And just to circle back to my original point: this isn’t about fear—it’s about disclosure. We all have different comfort levels, and that’s completely valid. But when something falls outside the norm, it really should be shared clearly before asking someone to commit. That’s the heart of the issue.

1 Like
17

Honesty and transparency are necessary. We are 100% on the same page!

It is sometimes difficult to tell if people are purposely deceptive or simply forgot to disclose something. It sounds like, in your second example above, that the people were purposely deceptive. They should definitely update their listing and offer to provide a detailed Welcome Guide which prospective sitters can review before confirming.

You are obviously intelligent, articulate, and detail-oriented. Not everyone has such a high degree of skill.

Everyone should follow the rules, but sometimes people don’t know the rules. Maybe people should have to pass a test before becoming members —LOL! :rofl:

I do not expect owners to have memorized MY LIST of dealbreakers that I carefully placed in my profile. It is sometimes difficult to maintain a positive, friendly tone while trying to make sure that the sit opportunity is a good match, but ultimately it is up to you, unfortunately, to review YOUR LIST with the owner, and cross your fingers that they are honest in their responses.

2 Likes
18

I get you now. I thought you meant they should disclose not having an alarm and key licking windows. No type of latch at all is very weird!

Homeowners should definitely describe the sort of details you mention in their listing.

1 Like
19

Before every sit, I say to myself “no whammies, no whammies!”

1 Like
20

Hi @Marion ,

My point wasn’t that everything should be on the listing, The size of the garden or the complexity of the meds isn’t the point of contention. The fact that they are required should be mentioned in the listing - specific instructions would then be more appropriately placed in the guide.

This is all about transparency. i read about a woman who turned up to do a sit for two dogs. It transpired that there was a cat, too, which had not been disclosed on the listing. Had we committed to a similar situation - where the HO’s had not been completely transparent - we could not have stayed as I am allergic to cats.

We need the info, folks!