07/04/2023
Updated
Allegedly, Defra and local authorities are powerless to take on the likes of Rover.
As we understand it councils cannot go after Rover’s customers as they are protected by law.
The issue LAs have with adverts on social media, or on sites such as Rover, is that the ‘advertiser’s’ home address is not visible unless the LA carries out an investigation.
Councils have to comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which restricts obtaining such information ‘covertly’, therefore, they find it difficult to find and engage with unlicensed boarders – if they say to Rover for example, they’re from the Council (overt), they ignore them, but if they engage as a possible customer its covert!
If the relevant local authority are advised of the offender’s address as part of a complaint, they can, in principle, immediately investigate and take appropriate action, but it’s difficult for them to intervene otherwise.
So…
How about if we plaster information like this everywhere we can - blogs, Facebook community groups etc. and even share it with our local authorities?
Blog/post/socialise?
Dog care services such as Rover, Pawshake, and Tailster are controversial, and despised by many pet owners and licensed pet carers for several reasons.
These platforms serve as marketplaces that connect pet owners with pet sitters, dog walkers and boarders, often without enforcing stringent qualifications or licensing requirements.
Lack of regulatory oversight:
One major concern is that these platforms appear to state it is up to pet care advertisers to ensure they comply with state and local laws.
Rover, Pawshake, and Tailster do not appear to make any real effort to police that pet carers offering regulated services such as home boarding or daycare are licensed by their local authority.
This lack of oversight can result in pet care providers operating without licences or qualifications, potentially putting pets' health and safety at risk, and pet owners in danger of emotional distress.
Insurance concerns:
Similarly, these platforms do not guarantee that pet carers have suitable public liability insurance coverage. They often offer a limited cover, considerably less than local authorities will accept. This can leave pet owners potentially exposed to financial risks if an accident or injury occurs during the course of the service. Licensed pet carers, who typically invest in such insurance, may find it unfair that they have to compete with unlicensed and uninsured individuals on these platforms.
The trouble is owners (and the pet carers on these sites) don't read the small print, for example "The Rover Guarantee” does not extend to... Damage, injury or other loss arising from a Service Provider’s care of any Third Party animal(s) alongside a Pet Owner’s pet during a Booking.".
So if the pet carer’s dog or another dog the pet carer is looking after bites your dog and causes thousands of pounds of vet bills, you will likely have zero come back. It won't even cover the excess on your own pet insurance.
Although there is a rumour that Rover will pay out anyway if the aggrieved party signs a non disclosure aggreement so the listings site can avoid bad reviews.
Having said that, when did you last see a bad review mentioning Rover? They do a brilliant job of bouncing negative reviews down the search engine listings! But they’re out there if you look hard enough.
Uneven playing field:
Licensed pet carers often invest significant time, effort, and money into obtaining proper certifications and complying with legal requirements. They may feel frustrated that these platforms enable unqualified individuals to offer services without meeting the same standards. This can lead to an uneven playing field and a race to the bottom in terms of service quality and safety.
Variable service quality:
Without proper screening, training, or background checks, the quality of pet care services offered through these platforms can be highly variable. This inconsistency can erode trust among pet owners and create a negative perception of the entire industry.
Potential for abuse and neglect:
In some cases, unqualified or unscrupulous individuals may take advantage of these platforms to offer subpar services, potentially leading to instances of pet abuse or neglect. Such incidents can further damage the reputation of these platforms and contribute to the controversy surrounding them.
To be fair
There are legitimate, professional pet carers listed on Rover and the such like. Some are licensed, fully insured and they will invariably comply with the legislation. Many listed pet carers are start ups, using the marketing power of these advertising platforms. Sadly, they’re too often in a minority.
In summary, the controversy surrounding organisations like Rover, Pawshake, or Tailster and similar largely stems from their lack of regulatory oversight, and insistence on shifting responsibility for compliance to pet care advertisers.
This can result in unlicensed, uninsured, and potentially unqualified individuals providing pet care services, creating an uneven playing field for licensed pet carers and potentially putting pets' health and safety at risk.
Check and double check
Do your due diligence. If you’re buying a regulated service eg boarding/day care, always ask to see the pet carer’s licence and for dog walking and pet sitting, check that the listed advertiser has public liability and the equivalent of ‘care, custody and control’ related insurances - and that these are adequate.
The pet owning public have a right to be fully informed when they buy pet care services through such online advertising platforms.
