Ask anyone who’s done a few sits, and they’ll often have a story. The sit that went perfectly for a year and then didn’t. The arrangement that seemed fine until the phone stopped ringing. The listing that bore no resemblance to reality.
The pattern in them is consistent: none of them were caused by evil people. They were caused by assumptions, gaps, and conversations that never happened. Here are six stories — and the specific agreements that would have prevented each one.
The sitter who vanished
A month-long rural sit with two dogs. The sitter left after one week without a word. No message, no handover, no reason. The dogs were discovered by a concerned neighbour who noticed them alone in the garden. A full week passed before anyone realised the sitter was gone. The agreed welfare check interval was 48 hours — the actual gap was seven days.
What an agreement would have done
Keeping in touch is one of the eight questions: how often the homeowner hears how things are going. Agreed beforehand, a missed update is a reason to act that day, not a week later. And every agreement carries the same promise: the animals come first. Whatever happens, they aren’t left without care, and anyone who has to leave contacts someone to take over first.
The mould the homeowner knew about
A month-long sit in a terraced house. The sitter arrived to find significant damp and black mould in the main bedroom, made worse by a broken heating system. The homeowner had agreed to full sitter control of the heating — but the system didn’t work. After a week, the sitter developed respiratory symptoms. The homeowner knew about the damp. They didn’t disclose it because they were afraid it would make the sit harder to fill.
What an agreement would have done
This isn’t one of the eight questions, and we won’t pretend it is. What helps is a promise every agreement carries: if either of you knows of a danger in the home (a fault, a hazard, anything that could cause harm), you tell the other. Damp and a heating system that doesn’t work are worth saying out loud before anyone arrives. A home that’s genuinely unlivable is never one a sitter has to stay in.
One dog became one dog, two cats, and a fish tank
The agreement covered one dog. The sitter arrived to find one dog, two cats, and a fish tank that needed daily water treatment and feeding. No vet authority existed for the cats. No care instructions for the fish. The sitter had never maintained a fish tank in their life. The homeowner said they “assumed it would be obvious.”
What an agreement would have done
Write down every animal and what it needs, together, before anyone travels. Then an animal nobody mentioned isn’t “obvious”. It’s simply missing from what you both agreed, and you can talk about it as that, calmly, before the sitter is left guessing how to feed a fish.
The cameras that were supposed to be off
A two-week sit with two cats. Both parties explicitly agreed: indoor cameras off during the sit. On day three, the sitter discovered the living room and kitchen cameras were active and recording the entire time. The homeowner had been reviewing footage and messaging the sitter about minor things they’d observed — what the sitter was eating, when they went to bed. It broke the trust between them: not the cameras themselves, but finding that the agreement said one thing and the house did another.
What an agreement would have done
Cameras indoors is one of the eight questions. The homeowner says which cameras there are and whether they’ll be on; the sitter says what they can accept. Once you’ve both signed, a camera that was meant to be off isn’t one person’s word against another’s. It’s written down, and finding it recording is a fair reason to end the sit.
The vet bill over the limit, and eight hours of silence
An elderly cat needed emergency surgery. The vet’s estimate was several times the limit they’d agreed. The homeowner was on a long-haul flight and unreachable for 8 hours — well beyond any reasonable response window. The sitter authorised the surgery to save the cat’s life. The homeowner returned to a bill they hadn’t agreed to. The sitter says they saved the cat. The homeowner says they exceeded the limit without permission. Both are right. Neither is happy.
What an agreement would have done
The urgent vet decision is one of the eight questions: the sitter calls first unless it’s a genuine emergency, or acts up to a limit, or can agree to whatever treatment is needed. Had they both answered it, the sitter wouldn’t have been guessing alone at 2am, and the homeowner wouldn’t have come home to a surprise.
The cleaning standards that existed only in someone’s head
The sitter left the house cleaner than they found it. The homeowner disagreed. The sitter had arrival photos showing dusty surfaces, full bins, and unmade beds. The homeowner remembered it differently. The argument consumed three weeks of messages, produced two retaliatory reviews, and ended a relationship that had worked well for three previous sits. The amount at stake: roughly the cost of a professional clean.
What an agreement would have done
The last morning is one of the eight questions: a basic tidy, or the home left the way it was found. Agree which, and take photos when you arrive and when you leave. Then “clean” means the same thing to both of you, and there’s much less to argue about.
The pattern behind every story
Six stories. Six different topics. One pattern: something wasn’t discussed, wasn’t disclosed, or wasn’t written down.
None of these people were villains. The homeowner who didn’t mention the extra pets probably thought it was obvious. The sitter who left might have been overwhelmed and didn’t know how to say so. The cleaning argument cost far more in goodwill than it ever did in money.
Eight questions, asked before anything goes wrong
None of these stories is in the agreement by name, but the patterns behind them are. The urgent vet decision is there because vet bills escalate fast. Cameras indoors is there because undisclosed cameras are hard to raise and easy to leave unsaid. The last morning is there because cleaning is a common post-sit argument.
You don’t need to know everything that might go wrong. You answer from your side, the other person answers from theirs, and where you differ, you see it before anyone signs. Not every story here has a line in the agreement, but several of them do.