We interviewed Sarah P on several occasions and met up with hr so that she should see and walk our dog Charlie (Sprocker), before dog and house and dog sitting for 4 weeks. Everything seemed perfect before Sarah P commenced the sitting, that was about to change within the first week of our vacation (identified in additional feedback). We became concerned regarding Sarah P’s ability to look after a dog; this was endorsed when we received a message ‘I suggest contacting a friend or relative who can take care of Charlie’. I would not recommend Sarah P to look after dogs, as it appears she is unable to control or handle them, together with ‘throwing’ the dog out of routine. We would not book again with Sarah P. Additional Feedback Sarah P was informed as to Charlie’s routine, a walk in the morning before his food, then a walk early afternoon and then one before he goes to bed (around 9pm). This was totally ignored by Sarah who altered this to suit herself. Charlie was walked by Sarah P in the morning after his food, then again in the afternoon, his final walk was around 5.30pm, then he was let out in the back at 9-10pm. Charlie was not trained to do his business in the garden, something which Sarah P tried to change. It was in the first week of four when we commenced receiving numerous disturbing messages from Sarah P. • Firstly, Sarah P changed personality changed then she changed Charlie’s diet (citing she knew best) without authorisation, causing diarrhoea to a point where she indicated she would have to take Charlie to the vet along with indicating his behaviour is unacceptable. o Sarah regularly indicated Charlie is a lovely friendly dog, Sarah P also kept indicating that she had worked in a vet and knew what food was best for our dog (vegetable), she did not listen to us. Charlie has all the meat possible for a dog, at one point Sarah P accused us of trying to tell her to feed Charlie with KFC, this was a lie from Sarah P, at no time did we say this. We were greatly disturbed by the lengthy messages which we received constantly from Sarah P, all of which mainly concentrated on herself and not our dog. To such an extent we had to cancel meetings and travel arrangements to deal with such lengthy conversations. As identified Sarah P took up vast amounts of our time with communications such as • Sarah P Comment - ‘I'm sorry to say the situation with Charlie has now become unbearable. As previously explained on private chat: I am unable to walk with him, Charlie is unruly and keeps putting himself and myself in dangerous and harmful situations. All the harnesses you provided me with resulted too large to contain his bad habit of pulling the leash, making it now very difficult to walk with him especially on busy streets or places with other people or dogs. Any dog trainer would suggest it as a temporary measure’. o Our dog is not ‘unruly’ – he does pull when he has a strong smell (or a discarded chicken bone), but he does walk steady. Sarah P was shown this numerous times before the sitting commenced. What is not mentioned is the lack of control by Sarah P, Charlie is a Sprocker and requires exercise. We believed there was a ‘lack of exercise’ as well as excessive ‘control’ following comments which were identified on our ring system ‘he is moving around too much’, ‘this dog moves when he shouldn’t’ and ‘he doesn’t move when he must (spoken in Italian by Sarah P and her partner). o Furthermore, Sarah P indicated Charlies harnesses did not fit and went and bought a new harness. Sarah P also identified she would not walk our (only to the park which is 3 minutes away) dog due to the harness issue. The harness she supplied is too large for Charlie and it constantly slips off him. Following the purchase of the harness Sara P, refused to walk Charlie further than the park (Charlie is now back on his normal harness). Sarah P also bought a retractable lead, we had already supplied a large training lead, our lead was not used and we assume she was using her own lead when she grazed her hand (Sarah P left the unused bandage next to the cupboard where she found it and did not dispose of). No harness or lead was good enough for Sarah P, she had to get one to suit her, in the end she went back to our lead but persevered wit her harness. o Moreover, at no time is our dog ‘dangerous’ as indicated by Sarah P, this statement is untrue. • Sarah P Comment -‘I know what hygiene is. I know what nutrition is. I know what exercise is. I know what having a pet in house means. I know how to keep a dog. I know what is right to feed them. I know what is right to do for them. I know from both experience AND academic knowledge.’ o If Sarah P has academic Knowledge, then she will know not to change a dog’s diet before asking the owners, as such a change will cause distress to an animal, Moreover, exercise would include allowing a pet to run, this is why we provided a 30mtr training lead, which was never used as Sarah P knew best. If Sarah P is aware of hygiene, then she will know the importance of washing and brushing a dog, something which she decided to provide her own advice on – and not wash a dog. All towels and shampoos were provided but not used. o Sarah P provided photo’s of brushing Charlie on the bed, this is not hygienic and ALL bedding had to be washed. • Sarah P Comment -‘your printer turned on, are you trying to print?’) o It was updating itself (as printers do) why send us messages? • Sarah P Comment - ‘If my work is giving you anxiety, I suggest contacting a friend or relative who can take care of Charlie’ o We were 6,000 miles away and this caused great discomfort and issues. We have tried to explain to Sarah P to keep Charlie on a short lead but she is not listening (she knows best), we became very concerned regarding the welfare of our dog. • Sarah P Comment -‘It seems to me you are now looking for any little reason to harrass me.’ o It became very apart Sara P has a ‘split personality’, she does not like people to comment on what she is doing, as she prefers to ‘control’ everything and everyone around her. We had to look at our house cameras due to the inconsistencies we were hearing from Sarah P. • Sarah P Comment -‘I discovered, for example, that some diced beef boxes are unsafe, as they are preserved with too much salt. Obviously, I'm not feeding them to Charlie.’ o This was a blanket statement from Sarah P, all our diced beef comes from a ‘premium’ supplier and (when checking the ingredients label) none have salt added. This was a way for Sarah P to reduce the amount of fresh meet cooked for Charlie. All such meat was frozen, and on our return, we noticed all of Charlie’s meat (diced beef box) was frozen and had recently been removed from the freezer. This action raises concern as it is obvious Sarah P did not defrost Charlies meat but rather used the microwave, (as evident from the smells within it). • Sarah P Comment -I cleaned from the floor of the corridor upstairs. I haven't taken pictures of other rooms as this is explicative enough. Even the bed sheets were dirty... o This was 3 weeks after commencing the house/dog sitting, yes there will be dirt and dust, especially when Sarah P was told to clean the dog before he came into the house. This was ignored by Sarah P; we constantly told her to use the bowl and wash Charlie (who has his long winter coat on). Sarah P permitted Charlie to sleep with her in the bed. When we returned the bed was extremely dirty and you could see where a dirty dog had been sleeping. We also had a friend visit Charlie and he commented, ‘the house is very dirty now and you would not like it’ Sarah P Comment -‘The bowl you use to clean his feet is upstairs, in the bathroom. As it has been raining quite often’, o This would mean Charlie had already walked through the house with dirty ones. Upon return the has as indeed very dirty, sheets on the bed not changed, towels left around the place, washed up pots left out, and both the cooker and over were left disgusting. All of the floors were duty with mud prints everywhere, it was very obvious, Sarah P did not follow our requests to clean Charlie before coming into the house. When we questioned Sarah P about cleaning Charlie, she said she did it inside the house – was this is why the house was very dirty? o Furthermore, the dog brushes were found both in the bedroom and on the stairs/bedroom, this leads to the assumption she was brushing Charlie in the bedroom and around the stairs. Additionally, the living room was also disgusting with dust and dirt everywhere. It took four days to bring the house back up to an acceptable standard, with the oven taking half a day to clean (we could not see into it due to the burnt-on grease on the glass, plus burnt paper food within the oven. • ‘ring notification ‘I’ve washed all my clothes’ (spoken in Italian) o While I can accept washing of bedding (which did not occur), I would not expect the washing of all clothes on the second to last day of her stay. Sarah P moved all her clothes the day before we returned, she (and her boyfriend) was also removing amounts of carrier bags, of which the contents are not known. • Sarah P Comment -‘I need to know how long it will take you to come home’ o Before we left, Sarah P was informed as to what time we would be back, the message sent by Sarah P is controlling and not indicative of a someone who would like to know your progress, (I need to know!!).