“You’re likely already doing everything you can, but I’m curious what steps other sitters have in place that reduce the likelihood of having a negative experience?”
This is not the first time I’ve seen THS staff slough off safety and hygeine issues by responding something to the effect of , “Gee, we’re sorry. Hey, let’s find out what other sitters are doing in these situations” rather than addressing them themselves.
Reducing the likelihood of negative experiences relies both upon sitter due diligence AND THS stepping in where sitters encounter situations which do not reflect the ho’s descriptions, etc. Further, when it is a significant safety issue (Hello ! Sexual harrassment !?!) THS needs to step in IMMEDIATELY upon notification. We all understand that THS cannot enforce laws but it can support sitters who are in danger or threat thereof by offeering resources to end the sit immediately (even if that is just notifying the owner and letting them know that the sitter will be leaving immediately, within 24h, etc) due to health and safety issues.
I’m fortunate to not have experienced such concerns and know that luck plays somehwat of a part. I can only ask so many questions, see so many pics and follow my gut…..this is never a guarantee; it is simply odds in my favour ….this time.
While I respect and agree with most of your comments and suggestions , I sit uncomfortably with the “working things out” when the other party presents issues (fabrications, actions -esp sexual harassment, threats and other such dangerous behaviours) which are an immediate threat to the sitter.
I understand that THS is not law enforcement but their lack of support for sitters who experience threatening situations MUST be addressed.
Just “working it out” with someone who is sexually harassing you or in a situation which could cause you significant harm - phyiscal or psychological - is not realistic.
What IS realistic is to say, “NO,” and to leave the dangerous situation. And here is where THS needs to step in : acting as a liaison both supporting the sitter and the ho (by explaining the that the sitter will be leaving in x amount of time giving the ho time to make other arrangements).
Just a quick reminder that the Forum Team’s role is to facilitate these conversations rather than provide direct member support. We don’t handle individual cases ourselves, but what we can do is create space for sitters and owners to share their experiences, insights, and strategies, which is why @Mark_B asked the question.
In this case, Membership Services already has an open ticket, and Mark also reached out to the OP directly and flagged the situation with the leadership team. So, while we may not always share the details publicly, please know actions are happening behind the scenes.
Conversations like this are exactly the kind of discussion the forum is here for. We’d love to hear from other sitters about what they’ve found most helpful in avoiding negative experiences. Sharing what works for you helps strengthen the community and supports your fellow sitters.
I completely agree that if a HO harasses a sitter, THS should be informed and—with evidence—remove that member from the platform. But from the OP’s description, it sounded like the issue was harassment from someone in the neighborhood, which is outside THS’s control.
As for the “fabricating a location” accusation, I don’t see how that fits. The actual address is always in the Welcome Guide, and I would never accept a sit without it. To me, the OP’s concern seemed more about the neighborhood not matching expectations—something research could help with.
What really triggered me was the title “not Trusted Homeowners.” Just as there are a few bad sitters among many great ones, a few negative HO experiences don’t mean the whole site is unsafe or that THS is negligent. What’s frustrating is that the OP hasn’t shared what steps they took—like whether they raised a member dispute. My question about that remains unanswered, which leads me to believe that a member dispute was not raised. Without that, how could THS resolve the issue?
I often think of THS as a matchmaker. If a match doesn’t work out, you can tell the matchmaker, but it isn’t their role to fix the relationship. If a serious crime occurs, the matchmaker can (and should) report it to authorities—but they are not meant to act as cop, judge, and jury.
@sabhob, like you then we have completed a bunch of housesits that have been mostly positive. Some spectacularly joyful experiences. A few undesirable learning experiences. Two sit cancellations. One recent housesit involved a perceived major policy breach that we reported to THS as a Member Dispute.
We believe that most people - Pet Parents and Housesitters - on THS are good people. But there are exceptions, perhaps on both sides. Hopefully the two-way, blind review process weeds out some bad actors - but this does require someone to suffer.
A simpler way to catch bad actors is through appropriate due diligence. Before confirming a housesit then both parties should assess their counterparts. Ask questions. Consider red flags. Clarify important details. Initiate relationship. If concerns persist then walk away. Ideally any bad Pet Parents are unable to confirm a housesitter, and any bad housesitters are unable to secure a housesit listing.
Hey Mark: Is it possible for there to be a way for sitters to report an issue privately while on a sit that becomes a part of the owner’s record but that they aren’t aware of until after the review process unless the sit is cancelled? Like they can report it via the sit page and if they choose “wish to cancel” then that triggers a notice to the owner with an auto message reminding them of whatever rule they are breaking and a notice to resolve it to keep the sitter - a notice that comes from trusted house sitters? This takes the awkward out of it for sitters. That way they are incentivised to resolve. They can then report how they resolved it. Keeps the process documented. And if the other party isn’t cooperative, no reviews can be posted. This is reserved for major breaches of agreement such as dirty houses, unsafe conditions, uninvited 3rd party guests or filming and abusive behaviour. Just a thought.
The process for this is to raise a “member dispute “ and present the evidence of the breach to THS . You can do this via the urgent support line . They can send a reminder to hosts , but obviously they do need evidence of the breach before they act otherwise a sitter could falsely accuse the host of a breach .
@Silversitters, thank you for highlighting Member Dispute process here and elsewhere over recent whiles . We were not even aware of this process, but alas had cause to trigger it recently. Hopefully only a small subset of housesits require Member Dispute.
But - perhaps akin to Sit Cancellation Insurance claims - it seems that THS has a clear protocol, requirements, and process.
According to lots of posts I have read on this forum, they don’t seem to work very often and seem very emotionally stressful.
Seems more a theoretical solution than a practical one, but it would be great to hear from people who raised a member dispute and had an outcome they were happy with.
What I’ve noticed on the Forum is that the dispute process often feels frustrating to members when the issue at hand is more about differences of opinion or expectations rather than a clear breach of the platform’s terms and conditions. In those cases, there often isn’t concrete evidence that THS can act upon, and understandably, that can leave people feeling that “the process doesn’t work.”
But the role of THS isn’t to mediate every disagreement or personality clash — it’s to connect members and to act when there’s a documented violation of the terms of service. When it comes to more subjective matters, it’s natural that the dispute process may not deliver the outcome a member hopes for.
At the end of the day, this is a voluntary community platform, not an employment contract or formal arbitration system. Sometimes the healthiest resolution — when things truly aren’t working out or feel stressful — is simply to step back, take a break, or walk away. THS won’t be the right fit for everyone, and that’s okay.
I’ve been thinking about how the systems are set up with this platform and I do think it is skewed toward problematic behavior by Homeowners that puts earnest sitters in too much risk for harm. Somehow the wording, lack of onboarding, lack of QC and identity verifications, plus lack of financial support for sitters, I think, engenders dishonest HO behavior.
I’m not saying there aren’t some dishonest sitters on the platform too, I’m sure there are…but I think the more problematic behavior is coming from HOs. And this is not to say that I expect humans on either side of the equation to be perfect or some ideal, we are all different after all and have our quirks or incompatibilities. But essentially the way it’s set up just encourages HOs to lie or omit things about their home, their pets and themselves in order to secure a free sitter who will then be in their house and under their “control”. And this is why it’s so common for sitters to report experiencing increasingly manipulative behavior and demands once they arrive on-site.
On this forum, which is heavily influenced by sitters, there are too many stories of truly egregious sitter behavior to support your claim. If you compare bad sitter stories versus bad host stories, the latter pale in severity and risk exposure.
Yes, I’ve used it before but the issue still rests with the sitter to resolve the matter of an owner choosing to break trusted membership rules. I’m hoping there is an automated way to report that triggers a friendly reminder email from trusted to fix x issue within 24 hours and invites the owner to report how they fixed it. If they don’t fix it, that triggers the right of sitter to leave without threat of a bad review looming. If they feel it’s a false report, it triggers sitter to upload evidence for their review… that’s when member services step in to check and mediate or allow the sitter to leave. It means the issue would potentially be resolved within 24 hours without any issue, and if not, they can comfortably leave without retaliation. This is for serious breaches. If sitter is happy to sort it out on their own they don’t need to use this process. When it’s a major breach this could help them. Ultimately, if owners had to do a check off list with trusted to confirm they cleaned the house, provided instructions, turned off internal cameras and agreed on 3rd party rule; that substantially resolves most issues that occur in advance.
We’re with @ElsieDownie - if it’s unsafe and you have to get out of there pronto then take the pets with you (albeit there aren’t 35 of them and you’re pretty experienced!). Deal with the fallout & longer term solution later. If the house caught fire you’d take the pets with you. There’s practical help and then there’s following rules for rules sake. #makeadecision
The very least THS can do is have the home owners do regular updates of photos & pets* (minimum once every six months with proof of date and time) along with verifying the google map location on their end to determine the walkability. It’s a $400+ glorified home exchange program with pets; not a free farm hand or rehabilitation situation. I’m on three other home exchange sites for a fraction of that cost. The photos for one of my sits was over two years old, and did not represent the space or location very accurately. I let it slide since the owners were extremely nice, and I did okay despite feeling uncomfortable, as I felt very nervous to leave the animals alone due to one constantly hiding (I couldn’t tell if she was eating), and another very elderly that I felt bad to leave alone too long.
@glsgls You don’t have to pay $400+!! That’s a choice. I still pay my original joining price (in £) which is equivilant to $120. I’ve never felt the need to Upgrade for the Extras.
I agree with you on updating Photos if/when needed. And listing details too. The same for sitters. I completely rewrote our profile last year after 6 years membership and ‘so much water under the bridge’!
. We were not even aware of this process, but alas had cause to trigger it recently. Hopefully only a small subset of housesits require Member Dispute.