Spend any time in housesitting forums, Facebook groups, or Reddit threads, and you'll find conversations platforms would rather not host. Real frustrations. Genuine bugbears. Issues nobody discusses publicly because the review system punishes honesty.
We have no skin in this game. We don't run a platform that needs both sides happy. We're building something for experienced sitters who've already navigated these waters. So we can afford to be direct.
This article has two purposes. For sitters: validation that you're not alone in these frustrations. For homeowners: honest insight into what might be driving good sitters away, even if they'd never say it to your face.
This guide covers systemic issues. For warning signs when evaluating a specific sit – listing red flags, conversation cues, pet-specific concerns – see our Red Flags guide.
Indoor cameras and trust erosion
Let's start with the big one. Indoor cameras in housesitting situations are a flashpoint that reveals a fundamental tension: if you don't trust someone enough to be unwatched in your home, should they be there at all?
What sitters actually think
- Outdoor cameras: generally fine
Security doorbells, driveway cameras – most sitters understand these are about property security, not surveillance.
- Indoor “pet cameras”: complicated
Some homeowners genuinely use these to check on pets during normal work hours. But leaving them on for a housesitter who's there 24/7? That's watching the sitter, not the pet.
- Undisclosed cameras: dealbreaker
Discovering a camera you weren't told about – especially after the sit – is a profound violation. Forum posts about this are full of genuine distress.
The real issue
It's not the cameras themselves. It's what they represent: that you don't actually trust this person you've invited into your home. Sitters have described feeling like they're “on probation” or “being tested.”
Some homeowners review footage and then question sitters about their choices: “Why did you let the dog on the sofa at 3pm?” This micromanagement-by-surveillance erodes the relationship housesitting is supposed to be built on.
For homeowners
If you feel you need indoor cameras to monitor your sitter, consider whether you've chosen the wrong sitter – or whether housesitting is the right solution for you at all. Paid professionals might be better suited to a monitored environment.
If you do have cameras, disclose them clearly upfront (many platforms require this). And consider turning them off while a sitter is in residence. You trusted them enough to accept them; extend that trust consistently.
Micromanagement and update demands
“I sent her updates and photos of the pets 3 times a day. If I didn't, she'd text me requesting more photos.” This is a direct quote from a sitter who still got marked down on “communication” in their review.
The update treadmill
Platforms rate sitters on “communication,” which incentivises excessive updating. But some homeowners interpret this as an invitation to demand constant check-ins – creating an “unpaid supervisor-employee dynamic” as one forum poster described it.
- Daily detailed updates
A daily photo and “all well” message is reasonable. Detailed logs of every meal, walk, and mood? That's a job, not an exchange.
- Immediate response expectations
Some homeowners panic if they don't get a reply within minutes. Sitters are living their lives, not manning a help desk.
- Camera-enabled follow-ups
“I noticed on the camera you left at 2pm – where did you go?” Sitters shouldn't have to justify leaving the house.
The anxiety transfer
Here's what nobody says directly: some homeowners' micromanagement isn't really about pet care. It's about their own anxiety about leaving. Their guilt about being away. Their worry that something will go wrong.
But that anxiety shouldn't become the sitter's burden. An experienced sitter knows what they're doing. Constant checking-in communicates that you don't believe that – and it's exhausting for everyone involved.
Treat culture and pet behaviour problems
This is the issue experienced sitters discuss among themselves but would never put in a review. Some pets are difficult not because of their nature, but because of how they've been trained – often unintentionally.
The treat schedule revelation
You arrive at a sit and discover: treats at 7am, treat after morning walk, treat before you leave the house, treat when you return, treat at lunch, treat during “quiet time,” treat at dinner, treat before bed. The welcome guide runs to several pages of treat protocols.
What you're inheriting isn't a pet care routine. It's a pet who's been trained to expect constant food rewards – and who will “demand bark,” beg relentlessly, and become increasingly difficult when treats aren't forthcoming on schedule.
Owner guilt, pet problems
Treats are often owner compensation. Working long hours? Treats make you feel better. Feeling guilty about leaving for a trip? More treats. The dog is anxious? Treats to soothe your anxiety about their anxiety.
But this creates a pet that becomes addicted to treats and refuse to settle without them, and can't self-regulate. And most of the treats contain some pretty horrific addictive properties, so the sitter then inherits a pet whose behaviour is genuinely challenging – not because of temperament, but because of training that the homeowner may not even recognise as problematic.
If it is a long housesit - the homeowner might return to find a calm animal and believe the pet sitter to be a miracle worker before reinstating the same addictive patterns.
The sitter's dilemma
- Follow the schedule, maintain the problem
If you stick to the treat routine, you reinforce the behaviour.
- Reduce treats, deal with the fallout
If you don't, you face demand barking, refusal to settle, and potential complaints from the owner.
- Can't mention it honestly
Telling an owner “your treat schedule has created behavioural issues” won't go well. So the cycle continues.
Dirty homes and cleaning expectations
“Another housesit, another dirty house.” This forum post title captures a frustration that comes up repeatedly. The photos showed a lovely home. The reality involved unwashed bedsheets, filthy bathrooms, and a kitchen that clearly hadn't been cleaned before the sitter arrived.
The hygiene gap
- Unwashed sheets
Arriving to find the bed hasn't been changed – sometimes visibly soiled. Sitters report having to strip and wash bedding immediately upon arrival.
- Dirty bathrooms
“The floor of the shower was coated in sludge.” Some sitters have reported being unable to shower at properties due to the condition of bathrooms.
- Deceptive photos
Listing photos rarely reflect the actual state. If the photos look cluttered, the reality is usually worse.
Then expected to return it spotless
The painful irony: sitters often arrive to dirty homes, clean them to liveable standards, and are then expected to leave the house “as clean as they found it” – which technically means filthy.
But of course, that's not what's expected. You're expected to leave it spotless, even if that's cleaner than it was when you arrived. One sitter reported being marked down for “dust under the beds” at a home they had actually deep cleaned.
For homeowners
You're asking someone to live in your home. The basic courtesy is to make it liveable before they arrive. Clean sheets. Clean bathroom. Cleared fridge space. This isn't about being judged; it's about respecting the person who's caring for your home and pets.
“Prison sits” and the 24/7 expectation
Experienced sitters have a term for sits where you essentially can't leave: “prison sits.” These come in two varieties, and neither is disclosed as clearly as it should be.
Separation anxiety edition
“Buddy can't be left alone” sounds manageable until you realise this means not at all. Not for groceries. Not for a coffee. Not for a walk unless Buddy comes too (and Buddy is reactive to other dogs, so good luck with that).
Some homeowners will “allow” the sitter to pop out for essentials – but the dog must come. If you're doing this for weeks, it's not housesitting. It's confinement.
Security obsession edition
Some homeowners want someone present 24/7 for property security. If you're a couple, one person must always be home. Going out together? Not allowed.
This raises a question: if you need round-the-clock security presence, are you looking for a housesitter or a security guard? One of those should be paid.
The freedom question
Before accepting any sit, ask directly: “How long can the pets be left alone?” If the answer is vague, evasive, or “they prefer company,” probe further.
Not everyone minds intensive sits. But you should know what you're signing up for. A week of 24/7 pet companionship is very different from what most sitters imagine when they see a “lovely cottage in the countryside.”
The 37-page welcome guide
Welcome guides are helpful. Detailed welcome guides are better. But there's a point where a welcome guide stops being informative and starts revealing something about the homeowner's psychology.
When detail becomes obsession
- Helpful
“Bailey eats at 7am and 5pm. Half a cup of kibble with a splash of warm water.”
- Concerning
“Bailey must eat from the blue ceramic bowl (not the red one). Water should be lukewarm (23°C). Kibble should be arranged in a clockwise spiral. If Bailey doesn't finish, photograph the remaining food and send immediately.”
What the guide length reveals
An extremely detailed welcome guide often indicates a homeowner who will struggle to let go – who will check in constantly, question your decisions, and find something to be dissatisfied with regardless of how well you follow their instructions.
This isn't always true. Some detailed guides are just thorough. But experienced sitters learn to spot the difference between “here's everything you might need to know” and “here's evidence of my anxiety about leaving my pet with anyone.”
Sleeping arrangements and comfort
“Comfortable accommodation” means different things to different people. Sitters have reported arriving to find their sleeping options are a sofa bed, a child's single bed, or an air mattress in a storage room.
Common issues
- Master bedroom locked
Understandable for privacy, but the spare room should be genuinely comfortable for multi-week stays.
- Pet-in-bed expectations
Some pets sleep on the bed. That's fine if disclosed. But discovering at 11pm that Buddy “won't settle” unless he's on your pillow? That should be upfront.
- No bed at all
Yes, this happens. Sitters have arrived to find they're expected to sleep on a sofa for two weeks. Not a sofa bed. A sofa.
Ask first
It feels awkward to ask “will I have a proper bed?” But it's more awkward to be a light sleeper stuck on a lumpy pull-out for three weeks. Request a photo of the sleeping arrangements. Ask about mattress quality for longer sits. Your sleep quality affects your ability to care for the pets well.
The review system's chilling effect
Everything above exists partly because the review system discourages honesty. Sitters can't mention problems without risking retaliation. Homeowners never hear honest feedback. The cycle continues.
How it works in practice
- The silent red flag
When sitters have a bad experience but don't want retaliation, they leave the review blank. Experienced sitters look for these gaps – a missing review is itself information.
- Diplomatic code
“The dogs kept us busy!” means they were exhausting. “The house had character” means it was a mess. Learn to read between lines.
- Fear of honesty
“I had a pretty horrible sit and the HO left a negative review as retaliation.” This dynamic keeps everyone performing positivity instead of communicating honestly.
What this creates
Homeowners who genuinely don't know their welcome guide is excessive, their home is dirty, or their pet is difficult – because nobody will tell them. Sitters who accept bad sits and stay silent to protect their reviews. A system that looks healthy from the outside but runs on mutual pretence.
This is partly why experienced sitters value moving to arrangements outside review-based platforms. Combined with changes like TrustedHousesitters' new booking fees, many are asking harder questions about the platform model. Repeat bookings and direct relationships allow for actual honest communication.
A note for homeowners
If you've read this far and feel defensive, that's understandable. But consider: the best sitters – the ones with decades of experience and impeccable track records – are increasingly selective about who they work with.
What attracts great sitters
- Trust demonstrated: No indoor cameras, reasonable update expectations
- Honest listings: Real photos, genuine pet descriptions, disclosed issues
- Reasonable expectations: Clean home, comfortable bed, sensible pet routines
- Some freedom: Pets who can be left for reasonable periods
- Respect: Treating the sitter as a professional, not a servant
The housesitting exchange works beautifully when both sides bring good faith. Experienced sitters will go above and beyond for homeowners who treat them well. They'll become repeat visitors, handle emergencies calmly, and genuinely care for your pets and home. But that relationship starts with the homeowner creating conditions where sitters can thrive.
The bottom line
Housesitting forums are full of frustrations that never make it into reviews. Sitters vent anonymously because they can't be honest publicly. Homeowners never hear the feedback that would help them improve.
We've collected these issues because transparency matters. If you're a sitter, know that you're not alone in these frustrations. If you're a homeowner, know that addressing these issues is what makes experienced sitters want to work with you again.
The best housesitting relationships are built on honesty from the start. That begins with being willing to discuss what usually goes unsaid.