How do sitters feel about owners asking to be reimbursed for utilities for a house sit with no pets? Long-term (3 months) sit
I’m an owner and there’s no way you should pay for utilities….unless of course they pay for your security services? Because that’s exactly what you’re doing.
5 Likes
Absolutely not. You want a reliable person who you can trust to look after and safeguard your home on dates to your choosing then that’s the bare minimum exchange. If you want to play landlord then goodwill goes out the window.
2 Likes
Being that it is quite rare for hosts to ask for contributions towards utilities, it is very easy to find a sit where you wouldn’t need to lay out any money for this. So unless the sit was a really unique, special opportunity in some way–or perhaps if it was generally a desirable area where these costs would be minimal–, or it was somewhere I really needed to be for that period, I would take a pass.
If their rationale for asking for this contribution is specifically because they are not seeking any animal care, and the person is getting a place to stay rent free for three months, I can see their perspective, and it’s not wrong or bad to ask for this. But because this is their own residence, they are getting the service of having someone watch over their home–it isn’t as if this is a rental property–but they may not have thought about it that way.
And some sitters may not mind since they are still saving a lot of money.
But again, because it’s not typical, and sitters can easily find opportunities without this requirement, they may have a harder time finding someone.
Hosts are permitted to ask for contributions, and sitters are free to decide they don’t want to make this contribution and not apply.
3 Likes
We have had an arrangement to pay for utilities, but only the amount above what they normally paid during that time of year. We thought that was fair, as it would have been easy to be careless about the aircon. At the end of the 5 months, we ended up,owing nothing.
2 Likes
Depends how much you want this sit. You could negotiate with them.
I would pass on any sit (pets or no pets) that wanted me to contribute to utilities.
And if the amount was less than what they’d usually pay, would they reimburse you?
5 Likes
Generally I’m not interested in paying utilities - I’m spending for transportation and with no animals, keeping the place safe and secure. But for the right location and right contribution, I might consider it. NYC, London, Los Angeles, Sydney, Melbourne off the top of my head. Or if you are a skier, winter at a great resort; or a surfer, Hawaii; or a food and music lover, New Orleans!
Then it also depends on many other things if I was interested. For example, could one have guests over at the house. Is the sitter required to be at the house every day? Restrictions like that would play a role for me.
This has been discussed a lot on the forum. If you put ‘utilities’ in the search field you can find other answers
A sitter will often pay quite a large amount in travel to go somewhere you wouldn’t otherwise go if it wasn’t for the sit, so for me I pay quite enough.
I also pay utilities at my own property while I sit. So I have no need to pay for the expenses of the property of the host in addition. I guess I could understand it if the host for instance was a single person on a fixed income and had a family sitting, but in such a case the cost that would be more than the host would normally use. At least here it is not something you do to close accounts for electricity, property taxes etc. when on holiday, so one would need to pay that also if one doesn’t have a sitter.
@DianeS have a valid point. When I sit for a family, I would use less water, electricity etc as a solo sitter than the family would normally do.
1 Like
As a sitter, there would have to be a compelling reason - i.e. dazzling feature - to consider a housesit that included a financial contribution. It frames homeowner negatively at the outset. It seems to disrespect a core value of housesitting. If a homeowner can levy charges then surely housesitter can levy fees too … sounds like a commercial relationship.
Later this year, we have a three month housesit in Western Canada with no pets. Friend rather than THS. No cash will transfer hands, either way. Our presence will give them peace of mind. In their absence, their home will be cared for and any issues resolved - we’ve got their back 
Our presence will also save them considerable expense as previously, to satisfy property insurance, they had to hire someone to regularly visit property to check everything ok (and maintain related evidence).
1 Like
We’ve never done it, I think I’ve only noticed that on one occasion in the areas where we typically sit, and because we knew the area, I really thought they needed a free guardian for the property in the particular area they are in, not to be charging for it.
If you have an amazing place in a stunning location, you have leverage.
If not, you risk attracting a suboptimal sitter pool (people with fewer options than others) or no sitter.
1 Like
Unlike many others who have posted I have no problem paying for the utilities I use. I’ve done this in SE Asia where it can prove very expensive if people run the air con a lot and HOs, who live there permanently, tend to be acclimatised and mostly use fans during the day. I like being able to use the aircon as much as I want without feeling worried I’m running up the HOs bill.
Of course sitters can make their own choice so if the sit is in an area with plenty of choice it will reduce the pool of people who might take it but a 3 month no pets sit is very attractive to many people.
I know some people feel you’re contributing enough by keeping the property safe etc but I take a more flexible approach, which suits me.
2 Likes