I’m reading yet again of another THS tragedy. I don’t know how else to categorize it. It’s on this forum, not yet in the press, but it’s bad. A homeowner trusted the wrong person and didn’t just come home to a messy house.
I’ve seen sitters lament criminal backround checks – only in the US and not of much use – and why homeowners don’t have them. I don’t think criminal background checks in one country only whether for homeowners or sitters solves this. But maybe there is some kind of further vetting that could be done for ALL members.
I know in talking to some neighbors about THS as “my” solution, they look at me like I’m crazy and have even expressed the opinion that I’m “endangering” the community. As a sitter, of course I take it personally if a homeowner acts like I’m not trustworthy. As a homeowner, I “trust” my vetting skills, but I also have a desirable sit and can just keep screening. I’m always happy when I can find a return sitter who can do the dates. Not because they were the “best” but because I trust them.
The company makes money when people join and in the future when they “book” if they don’t have premium. But should they be doing more to screen both sitters and homeowners? Sitters have left sits because of dangerous pets that have gotten through or weird third party occurences. Homeowners have discovered theft – not something misplaced but actually theft. And then there missing animals or abused animals. I realize these cases are rare. However, I can’t help thinking that if there was more screening for ALL members coming through they would be even more rare. Or even more enforcement of rules and banning after questionable incidents before disasters.
I think more detailed screening for European members would be very difficult and perhaps impossible. This is because of data protection laws meant to protect a person’s privacy.
Doubt greater screening is realistic, because most people wouldn’t go through it. Before THS started U.S. screening, there was already a bloody outcry.
Unlikely now, with THS owned by private equity and under pressure to boost revenue, that they’d introduce even more friction into the system. Plus, greater screening would mean even greater costs, passed onto members.
For hosts who want such, hiring professionals with licensing, bond/insurance, etc., probably is the best alternative, if they’re willing to pay.
THS actually doesn’t provide pet and housesitting services, they provide a platform to connect people willing to offer such a service with those seeking it. This is a very important distinction to make as far as their responsibilities, liabilities,etc…as well as people’s expectations. I think most members on both sides understand this, contrary to some of the postings sitters and hosts have made there that suggest otherwise.
Unless they decided to switch that up,and personally facilitate these matches, personally interview sitters,etc…I am not sure there is significantly more they can do. And even operating on this sort of model would have no guarantees.
They check IDs for everyone, they do background checks for US residents, both of which have value I believe, but aren’t any sort of perfect solution–there is no true ‘solution’ to this issue anyway.
What other type of stuff would they ask of sitters? A psychological work-up proving mental fitness? Undergoing a lie detector test to prove they have no intentions of stealing from a host or doing other ‘bad’ things? Proof of finances? That isn’t meant to be sarcastic but just to illustrate the point that there is only so much that can be done.
It isn’t an activity that requires any specific training, licensing or education that THS would require proof of before sitters can create a profile and offer their services on the site.
I think the vast majority of sitters are decent, upstanding people. I think the vast majority of sits go well for both sides.
Yes there is risk here as anyone on both sides can join the platform. I appreciate people have different levels of comfort with the concept, and for those whose levels are particularly low, and they feel the site doesn’t do enough to vet the members, then it probably isn’t for them.
Just wanted to point out that they check ID for all sitters and do background checks for US sitters, not homeowners. Personally, I feel all members should have the same checks regardless of whether they are joining as a sitter or host.
But I agree, I don’t think there is a lot that THS can do in terms of vetting. THS members are not employees. Although, I think THS could be more clear about the service they provide which is just an opportunity to connect with either sitters or hosts. I do think there are a lot of newer members who don’t realize they need to do their own vetting for finding sitters or sits. I have come across members who think the sitters are THS employees.
Basically, not an easy one to answer. This site offers an unlawful (in most countries) exchange based on ‘trust’ between users, and neither accepts nor recognises any responsibility when stuff hits the fan (go to the post on the host whose pet has apparently been “dognapped”). We all take a risk and the site takes a dollar (or two). It’s business
There is risk in life. Most people try to mitigate as much as they can but sometimes circumstances are out of your control. To be honest I think a lot of people take on pets without considering the full care ramifications and usually the sits that go bad is when people are scrambling for a sit or sitter for whatever reason. We don’t live in a perfect world.
Background checks and reviews only provide a snapshot of someone at a specific point in time. Any criminal activity or mental health issues that arise afterward would not be identified or prevented by such checks.
At the same time, requiring full annual checks for everyone feels impractical. Many sitters and hosts would likely be put off by repeating the process each year, especially with the added costs that would probably be passed on to users.
Again, I don’t think the background checks based on public records in the US are terribly effective. I’m just thinking of “vetting” for actual jobs – and what employers do. I know that neither homeowners or sitters are “employers” nor are the “tenants” there are just so many situations that involve investigations. THS just means putting down your membership fee.
I don’t disagree with anything you are saying. But the advertisements imply something else. I know that as a sitter there are many listings that are unappealing and some that actually give me a yeechy feeling. There are also a few I’ve reported and I think it would be helpful to have a report button rather that just hoping sits that blatantly violate the terms of conduct won’t find willing applicants. So that’s an example on that end of something that could be done.
But it doesn’t solve the problem of the sitter stealing the car and the pet or other scenarios. It just feels that this isn’t a just an exchange set up on facebook.It’s a big business with hundreds of thousands of members. There should be more, and I’m having trouble articulating what. . And I’m definitely NOT talking about background checks. Maybe a different/better way of tracking “issues” or even looking (with AI) at patterns in reviews. I’m not sure. But I feel that there are two many horror stories and even though this hasn’t been my experience (yet) I’m not victim-blaming.
When I mention policies here’s what I mean: There are street corners with accidents. Sometimes putting a traffic light on the corner cuts down on the accidents. What is the equivalent here?
I’m not suggesting a specific solution like yearly “checks.” I just think there are changes that would likely cut down the number of horrendous awful incidents.
It’s always going to be hard to mitigate the risks associated with unexpected human behaviour. In the current case being discussed elsewhere in the Forum the previous HOs had nothing but praise hence their positive reviews of a sitter who it seems has now acted completely out of character-no organisation or friends or family can predict this type of thing happening in an individual. Every day somebody somewhere is being reported as ‘missing’ and family and friends are seemingly puzzled when there’s been no indication of anything amiss … as a retired therapist I worked with clients who were previously functioning in jobs, had families, friends responsibilities in a community but snapped…. due to well hidden issues often something that nobody could’ve imagined.
@BonnyinBrighton that happened to my father Perfectly normal and then one day just snapped. We didn’t even know who he was anymore. All due to extreme emotional distress that was never talked about or diagnosed because he was always the strong one. It was something I myself never recovered from, watching that happen. He recovered after a long time in therapy but died shortly after. A terrible thing is undiagnosed mental health and happens moreso I believe in men.
I’m just going to say that while I agree there’s no perfect solution that will eliminate every possible risk, there are things that could be done to better mitigate it. As with seatbelts: they may not prevent every injury or fatality — but every one they do prevent is a win.
That said, short of a legal mandate I have zero expectation that the company will look at or even consider any changes in this regard. It would cost money, require resources, and doesn’t directly increase subscription revenue.
Enforcing rules could definitely be improved and adding a report button to listings . ID checks on hosts as well as sitters. Making it easier and quicker to contact a team member in member services would also be an improvement .
That being said I don’t know what more could be done that could have prevented the current situation where a host’s pet and car have been taken by the sitter (as reported on the forum and in the news ). This sitter previously had great reviews . It seems no one at THS and not even previous hosts that the sitter sat for recently could have anticipated this outcome .
Yes, I don’t see what could have prevented this awful situation, hopefully the sitter will soon be found. This is without a doubt, bad publicity for THS.
Perfectly normal and then one day just snapped. We didn’t even know who he was anymore. All due to extreme emotional distress that was never talked about or diagnosed because he was always the strong one. It was something I myself never recovered from, watching that happen. He recovered after a long time in therapy but died shortly after. A terrible thing is undiagnosed mental health and happens moreso I believe in men.