Money Moral Dilemma: Should I pay my colleagues £500 for looking after their house and cats?

Oldish_biddy

I’m quite shocked they’ve asked you for money.  20 years ago, before I had wonderful neighbours where we each look after the others moggies, I had to pay for cat sitting. I Googled for rough costs now.   £15 an hour (that’s ridiculously cheap) and much more an hour. Okay you’re using their gas and electricity and, totally irrelevant,  saving time and or money commuting but what are they getting? More than minimum attendance for their cats AND, just as important, security for their home. Their buildings/contents insurance may well have been higher too.  Maybe this should have been talked about before the event but how would anyone see this coming? Not me!

Jason9091

I wouldn't class this as a dilemma. It's an easy situation to resolve. If they have a good sense of humour, assume they're joking and say "good one guys, that's so funny". If they're serious, tell them to "jog on" (or words to that effect).

gloriouslyhappy

I’ve never seen universal agreement on one of these dilemmas before. Everyone here agrees the cost of the service you provided is more valuable than the rent they are suddenly demanding. I’d google local catteries and show them what their two cats would have cost them for safe boarding while they were away.

Then suggest they deduct their proposed £500 rent and pay you the difference. No? They don’t think that’s fair? Then both parties should shake hands and walk away with no money changing hands.

lespri

You should not pay! You provided a pet sitting service for their extended absence, which would have been a substantial cost otherwise. A little advantage has been taken here!

Marvinator

honestcove said:

Counterclaim by presenting them with a bill for £2,000. 
80 days at £20/day.
A bargain for looking after their little darlings.
You could also add a bit for “insurance cover” as without you there many standard house insurances are voided if property left empty for circa 3 months. 

You make an excellent point here. Most insurance policies would not cover for a property left unoccupied for 30 consecutive days, let alone 90 days or more.

I’d also suggest that their mortgage provider - if applicable - would be equally unimpressed by such actions.

Wbsh7

That's laughable! Where I live, it's around £45 per night for a live in cat sitter. You should pay them the £500 and hand them an invoice for £1500 at the same time, saying it isn't much for 3 months house and cat sitting service!
People like that need a reality check! 

DannyHotPotato

Agree to pay everything requested in accordance with the written contract everyone signed before their trip.
What contract?
Exactly.

Mobile232

No you shouldn't pay a thing, especially since it wasn't agreed beforehand. I once looked after a friends 3 cats and they paid me and allowed me to stay at their house.

CapeTown

I had a relative come and stay in my London flat with her boyfriend.  To be fair she asked to stay. I wasn't there at the time. I said in a text that if she could make a contribution towards bills whilst she was there .... nothing, not a penny given. Is the OP sure nothing was mentioned about covering bills. What about damage.

OptimisticAbby

You don’t mention what you had to pay for your usual home whilst you were cat sitting. I’ll bet that you still had costs - no one has rent / mortgage / bills that they can just switch off for three months. Point that out to your ‘friends’. Your costs won’t have reduced that much, if at all.