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

Juerly

This is so cheeky. If they are important to your job, they are taking advantage of that and you should be cautious in your response - but I would refuse. Even if they aren't crucial to your job, it's indicative of the type of people they are. Your commute shouldn't come into it at all - you are saving them money they would have had to spend on a cattery and giving them peace of mind by providing care and company for the cats and protecting their home at the same time. 

hairypitz

I’m due to go away for a couple of months and have found someone via Trusted Housesitters to look after my furry friend.
The only thing I can think of that may be in any way be a justification for landing you with a £500 bill is if you completely took the p*ss with utilities. 

If your colleagues came home to stratospheric bills because you left the heating on full blast day and night, I’d maybe understand why they were asking for something in the aftermath.  Or if you’d caused damage to something large and expensive, without fessing up and offering to repair/replace it.
Short of either of these two reasons I’d ask your colleagues why they want the money now, when nothing had been discussed previously and you continued to have expenses on your own property while looking after theirs. Tell them that if you’d have known there was a bill for taking care of their cat and home you wouldn’t have bothered and leave it there. 

Drach

I pay £20 per night for cat sitting. Arranged in advance. Do not pay them. However, if you saved lots of rent or gained from renting out your property you might consider giving them something and ask them to make arrangements in advance in future.

Chris_Jay

Reading through the comments, I'm not sure if my eyebrows could climb any higher! My situation is that I have an elderly cat, who has become very needy, understandably. She has always been loving and close to me, wherever I am in the house. I'm also elderly, on a state pension, and I haven't had a holiday for years. Leaving aside the costs of a cattery, I wouldn't be easy about leaving my old lady somewhere strange to her, so would prefer to have her looked after at home, by someone familiar to her. As that isn't possible, for a number of reasons, I have to put her first, like the dependent that she is, and accept not going away. I had staycations for years, before they became fashionable!
If I had known that all I had to do was con someone into home and cat sitting, then charge them for the privilege, would I have done it?

Actually, no. Not because I'm a saint unrecognised. But because I would hate to have that done to me. It's wrong, on so many levels, and I really feel for the OP, and hope that this can be solved amicably, with no money being given to a couple who have, allegedly, played fast and loose with the goodwill of a work colleague.

ollythecollie

On the basis of the poster being in a position to move into the colleagues' house for a few months, I am guessing that they may well be living in their family home, and therefore possibly quite young, which would also tie-in with how the proposal was presented and their fear of difficulties in the work situation, if they are somewhat junior to the colleagues.  Frankly, the way I would advise to deal with this couple is to give them a very brief reply, beginning with f and ending in off.  At the very first indication of any subsequent retribution in work, go immediately to their line manager(s) and report the whole thing.  As it stands, it's not a work issue, but if they bring it into the workplace, it very much is.  What they are doing currently is mild bullying on a personal level, if they make things awkward at work unless they get money, that is extortion.

robert11

Nothing agreed up front I'd simply say you'd assumed they'd be paying you for the favour. If you were simply expecting a gift of some sort just say look due to the misunderstanding on both our parts lets just call it quits. Personally I'd go one further and never offer again unless the missed commute was heavily in my favour at which point a discussion needs to take place next time re who's getting what from the arrangement.

Ozzwald255

MSE_Kelvin said:

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

Two colleagues, who are a couple, were going travelling for a few months and asked me to house-sit for them and look after their two cats. We didn't discuss money, but they presented it as a way of reducing the cost of my commute (which was true) so I agreed. When they returned, they asked me to pay them £500, saying it wasn't much for three months' rent. I'd assumed that if anything, they'd want to give me something for looking after their house and cats. I don't want to pay, but also don't want to make things difficult at work. What should I do?

Unfortunately the MSE team can't answer Money Moral Dilemma questions as contributions are emailed in or suggested in person. They are intended to be a point of debate and discussed at face value. Remember that behind each dilemma there is a real person so, as the forum rules say, please keep it kind and keep it clean.

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.
Got a Money Moral Dilemma of your own? Suggest an MMD.

With friends like that you don't need any enemies 

Mully52

I cannot believe they have asked for £500 to look after their cats. We have someone coming to our home twice a day too feed our 2 cats for a week and we pay them £25 a day, but we always give them £250 because looking after someone else's pets is an inconvenience. They have full use of our home and we even stock the fridge for them. You should not be asked to pay towards anything, I think your friends are very rude. They obviously don't want their moggies in a cattery, too expensive also cats like to be home. If they went on pets house trust... People come over stay in home and look after your pets for free. Please don't fall out with your friends but you do need to talk too them. Maybe suggest having them at yours. They should of discussed and sorted this out properly, it's their responsibility not yours xxx

Cinders2001

MSE_Kelvin said:

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

Two colleagues, who are a couple, were going travelling for a few months and asked me to house-sit for them and look after their two cats. We didn't discuss money, but they presented it as a way of reducing the cost of my commute (which was true) so I agreed. When they returned, they asked me to pay them £500, saying it wasn't much for three months' rent. I'd assumed that if anything, they'd want to give me something for looking after their house and cats. I don't want to pay, but also don't want to make things difficult at work. What should I do?

Unfortunately the MSE team can't answer Money Moral Dilemma questions as contributions are emailed in or suggested in person. They are intended to be a point of debate and discussed at face value. Remember that behind each dilemma there is a real person so, as the forum rules say, please keep it kind and keep it clean.

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.
Got a Money Moral Dilemma of your own? Suggest an MMD.

Wow, going by the comments, I’m out of pocket then!
I regularly house sit for people at no charge! Granted I don’t actually live in their houses but if they have animals I’m there every day. If no animals then I pop in every other to make it look inhabited.

In the above case, then there really should have been more talk beforehand.
The person doing the sitting, I assume, had their own house to live in with all their own bills to pay too?
So being charged a £500 fee for doing these people a favour is a bit much going by the details we have been supplied with.
A professional house/animal sitter or cattery would have charged THEM that money.
They got it for free from a friend.
Shouldn't have asked for rent as far as I can see.

Pr3man

Them asking for money after the fact for their service is only like you asking for money after the fact after your services.
If neither of you agreed or implied there would be any monetary transaction before, then why should there be an expectation after.
It sounds like an amicable transaction, whether there was a skewed value in either parties favour is irrelevant, because there may have been other non tangible benefits such as trust and convenience.