We’ve encountered this issue, twice. On the first occasion, the dog was claimed to be ‘my only pet’ in the listing, but ultimately was joined by the pet parent’s partner’s dog (who didn’t live there). Both dogs were clearly used to each other and both were a pleasure to care for, but we felt a bit duped and taken for granted by the host.
On the second occasion, we’d agreed a long sit for a single dog but a few weeks before it commenced, were informed their daughter and son-in-law would be calling by from time to time and dropping their dog off when they went out on their motorbike at weekends. We withdrew from the sit.
This seems like a bad idea and best avoided, especially in your example of dogs and cats from different households. Absolutely no way to expect them to get along and likely lead to the cat disappearing.
I’m a bit surprised THS didn’t just tell them to both get a membership and each find a sitter.
eh, I think if it’s clear from the start that both pets will be there the entire time then it’s ok if you’re willing to do it. I find this different from ‘you have x pet 24/7 and y pet whenever we feel the need to drop them off for as long as we want’.
I do think it’s a stupid policy and I’d probably not do a sit for someone doing that, but it’s just one of a list of many things that THS does that makes 0 sense.
The more I think about it, the more odd this policy seems.
From a revenue point of view, you would have thought they would encourage the other family member to sign up as a member
Families can be very large! One listing membership could end up covering numerous households and pets (and numerous vets).
I very much doubt there will be any requirement to prove the family relationship, so this could extend to friends, neighbours…
The only reason I can see for this decision from a business perspective, is to offer something that competitors don’t offer. Has there perhaps been a slow down in the rate of new hosts joining? Still seems odd given THS’s market share.
Heading off now to count up all the pets in my extended family to see if it is worth getting a combined membership… (only joking!)
I think all of here have different ideas about house sits. I have seen listing with horses and chickens, not for me. But I could handle this, as long as there wasn’t four dogs that needed walking. Some here don’t like walking dogs at all and sit cats. Why there is a variety of HOs and HSs. We put our applications in and take the ones we like. Some sits I love, the houses are lovely, clean, the pet is a small dog that doesn’t require 5 mile walks and goes easily in the car for adventures. Some are not as great, OK, but not great. I am in on a sit now, just needed a quick trip to deal with some logistics in the area. The house is OK, the dog is OK, needs more attention and walks are not great in the area, a lot of streets with traffic. But it is not awful. If I didn’t need to be in this area, I wouldn’t have taken it. But it is a short stay, works for a review. So there are plenty of options for all of us. As long as the listing is clear. And they would state arrival and departure times. I just had an offer that I refused to confirm until they booked flights. They did, and I need to be there the day before. Works for me but I wanted to know. That kind of stuff needs to be clear.
A THS friend has just done “wedding cover” for pets whilst the wedding goes on in the grounds! (Yes it breaks the rules) but she was fully up for it and was a good Greek, Brit, Ozzie combo so she thought Mamma Mia eat your heart out…@Debbie maybe you can book her #layallyourloveonme
I remember seeing that sit advertised @Cuttlefish and the guest all had access to the main house too as I recall .
I hope the hosts were suitably appreciative.
In the first, it would seem to me that early disclosure was the only “issue” with the first sit described. The second really seems like something different. I could imagine a situation where the older couple is often home and just drops off their dog on the regular, and the parents don’t mind, but I could see how this would very much interfere with the plans and privacy of sitters so it would be an inappropriate ask, and really if mom and dad aren’t around for free petsitting, an alternative plan needs to be found.
@Debbie Yes, THS’s decision to allow this does seem “off”, for sure. For all the reasons you’ve stated.
What is also very off is the fact that this major policy change has yet to be communicated to the community as a whole. I think about the unsuspecting sitters who will be confronted by this, because they didn’t know to ask about it during the video chat – before confirming anything.
Many thanks to @Happypets for bringing this to our attention.
First, even if this is a “new” policty, I’m sure there have been some guest dogs including all along. I think the scenario you describe of more than two households, and many pets who might not even know each other, is just unlikely. Most homeowners would not want strange dogs staying with their dogs or in their home, period. The much more likely case does involve close family – parents going on vacation with their adult children and allowing pets they know very well to stay in their home with their pets. In these cases, the homeowners may not do this with every sit, and the combining isn’t just to save money but to actually have company for their pets who know and like each other. My sister’s dog and her son’s dog are FRIENDS. All the dogs are family. She doesn’t even use THS, but if she did, and if she was traveling with her son, I could see them combining, and it would be a great sit. (I might even do it!)
But would their be “unsuspecting” sitters. Wouldn’t all the pets still need to be listed? Wouldn’t the sitter still be asking about all the pets and their behaviors before taking the sit?
The OP says that membership services stated that is was a recent update. They have gone through the T&Cs on the website and found the new section. (Thank you @Happypets). So yes, it is new.
Several other comments in this thread, including one of my own previous comments, include examples of “guest dogs”, whose owners may or may not have been related and may or may not have been holidaying together, so you are correct that this has probably been happening previously (along with sits without an overnight stay, day care for extra dogs, other people present in the house, and a whole host of other scenarios that are not permitted under THS T&Cs). There will always be a minority who try to take advantage.
Pets from more than 2 households is not impossible, and really not even that unlikely. I don’t recall making mention in my example of the pets not knowing each other, or the dogs staying being “strange dogs”.
I think the point I was trying to make, in a light-hearted way is this. While most homeowners are reasonable and sensible and want what is best for their pets, there will be some who could really take advantage of this rule. It could become very complicated for the sitter to manage. While experienced sitters do their due diligence, there are many who have not yet learnt to do this. While experienced sitters can set and uphold boundaries, others really struggle with this.
I read the referenced “new rule.” Here is the thing. It doesn’t read like anything “new.” It looks more like a clarification. It also specifically talks about “families” traveling together and that this works best if the pets already know each other. It also mentions the homeowner should be know the pets and be able to describe them. So this is more of a guideline that wasn’t previously explained then something “now for the first time…” Hosts who did this previously were not violating rules if they did it as described.
Unscrupulous people – homeowners and sitters – are going to do unscrupulous things, I just don’t see this clarification as leading to a new set of problems.
To me if anything it would solve an issue like the following: A sitter cancels a sit because the sitter found out later that one of two dogs actually belonged to the son, and even thought the homeowner seemed to know about the dog’s behavior, the sitter didn’t feel comfortable. The homeowner reported the sitter as she did not feel it was an extradinary reason. THS sides with the sitter because the information wasn’t given before the sit was agreed to. The homeowner is reminded that she must state that the dog actually belongs to her son and doesn’t live in the house full time. The homeowner then reposts the sit making that information public and explaining the relationship between the two dogs. Because of the inconvenience the first sitter suffered, the homeowner’s account is put on watch to make sure they disclose all conditions next time. Another sitter is happy to take the sit.
I think speculating about how people might take advantage of loopholes or rules whether they are sitters or hosts is never really “lighthearted.” The implication is that we are somehow different from each other. There are unscrupulous people who are sitters and hosts. This is why everyone needs to screen and understand the conditions and vet and communicate before any agreement is reached. Clarifying the conditions by THS is probably a good thing, that can protect both parties.
