After completing 50+ sits, I’ve been reflecting on a pattern I encountered in a few of my most difficult ones: the expectation that the homeowner’s vacation should remain uninterrupted, while the sitter should quietly absorb whatever problems arise.
Most of my sits have not been like this. But in those difficult experiences, raising concerns about accommodation, undisclosed responsibilities, or preexisting property issues was treated as complaining rather than communicating responsibly.
To me, housesitting should be a reciprocal arrangement. The homeowner receives pet care, attention to their home, and the ability to travel. The sitter receives suitable accommodation and the opportunity to enjoy their stay while fulfilling the responsibilities agreed upon. Neither person’s time nor well-being should be treated as less important.
For example, when I raised concerns about indoor cameras operating during a sit, the homeowner responded, “What were you doing in my house?” rather than addressing my concerns about privacy and compliance with applicable law and TrustedHousesitters’ rules. That response shifted the focus from the cameras to questioning my behavior simply because I had raised the issue.
On another sit, I discovered that there were no working smoke detectors in a house with two stories in an area prone to fires. I also raised concerns about extensive mold in the refrigerator and in the bedroom provided for me to sleep in. The homeowner was dismissive and repeatedly emphasized that I was a “guest” in her home and should say positive things about her “wonderful home” and not disrupt her vacation. That framing overlooked both the conditions I was experiencing and the care and work I was providing in exchange for accommodation.
I understand that caring for pets and a home involves work. Unexpected things happen, and I’m willing to be flexible, solve problems, and communicate. What concerns me is when that flexibility becomes an expectation of unlimited availability, particularly when a sitter is left managing problems that existed before arrival, coordinating repairs, or taking on substantial responsibilities that were not disclosed when the sit was agreed upon.
There is a difference between handling an unexpected situation and being expected to absorb the consequences of inadequate preparation. There is also a difference between providing the care we agreed upon and being treated as an unpaid employee whose own plans, comfort, and time do not matter.
If a problem needs the homeowner’s attention, informing them is not an attempt to ruin their vacation. Their being away does not make the problem disappear. The sitter should not have to choose between staying silent about legitimate concerns and being labeled demanding or incapable, or receiving a retaliatory review containing false claims.
One further observation: in my experience, the homeowners with these expectations have also been the ones who offered little or no hospitality, not even a small gesture of welcome or appreciation. I’m not talking about expecting gifts or special treatment. I’m talking about basic consideration and recognition that the sitter is contributing something valuable. Instead, the expectation seemed to be that providing any place to stay, even one that was uncomfortable or unsafe, entitled them to whatever help they wanted, without concerns being raised or their vacation being interrupted.
I even had one homeowner say to me I should be grateful for being able to stay in her home because it would cost $400 a night for me to stay anywhere in the area!! I took care of her three senior cats over Christmas holiday!
The question cannot simply be, “Did the homeowner have an uninterrupted vacation?” It should also be, “Did the sitter receive the accommodation, information, and support needed to carry out the sit under the conditions agreed upon?”
I also believe TrustedHousesitters needs to evaluate disputed reviews more carefully by examining the documentation and timeline across all channels. If concerns about a sitter first emerge in response to that sitter reporting serious problems with safety, accommodation, or undisclosed responsibilities, that timing should be central to assessing possible retaliation. Timing alone does not establish that an allegation is false, but TrustedHousesitters should examine whether it is supported by contemporaneous evidence, such as messages, photographs, or reports made at the time, rather than simply accepting a counter allegation as an equally substantiated account. Sitters should be able to report serious concerns without having unsupported accusations used to discredit them.
I’d like to hear other sitters’ thoughts. In my experience, asking TrustedHousesitters to remove retaliatory reviews or take action against homeowners, including banning them, has been an arduous process. So far, my complaints about this issue and two homeowners have resulted in no action being taken by THS.
Final thoughts: When I was a new sitter, I tended to give homeowners inflated reviews, especially because I would often hear from them if I deducted stars or offered any criticism. I also put up with poor conditions during sits and didn’t contact TrustedHousesitters about some significant issues I encountered. I suspect many new sitters do the same thing as they don’t want to upset homeowners, or worry about the impact on their reviews.
One thing I’ve learned over time is the importance of being honest in my reviews so other sitters can benefit from my experiences and make informed decisions. I also no longer put up with unacceptable conditions during a sit. Homeowners should understand that they can’t treat sitters badly without accountability, and honest reviews are one way to ensure that other sitters are aware of what they might be getting into.
