A problematic guest left the house, to the relief of other guests, but has now filed an unwarranted complaint

[Steve-and-Phyll0]

Last week, we accepted a reservation request from a guest named Jordan Chance. During his stay, Jordan violated multiple house rules and, upon departure, alleged that his privacy had been violated based on the following link: https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/3060.

We use Airbnb extensively while traveling ourselves and appreciate that you take such allegations seriously, but we are disappointed in the organization’s dismissal of our own concerns as longtime hosts.

Neither we nor our guests at any time violated Jordan’s privacy, but he smoked cannabis on the premises, in clear violation of our no-smoking policy, brought a dog into the house that howled when left alone, claiming it was a service dog that was so quiet we would never notice it, and then blocked access to a shared amenity—the laundry room—thereby interfering with the rights of other guests.

He then left of his own volition after making baseless claims against myself and the other guests. His departure was greeted with relief by the other guests, and I am fine letting him cancel his remaining days, but I cannot let him make baseless accusations against me and the other guests.

My interactions with your agents have been excellent over the years, until now. In this case, your agents have not demonstrated an ability to reason. They keep reverting to the rule about a service dog while dismissing all other issues or demanding physical evidence of marijuana use and disregarding corroborated guest complaints. In so doing, Airbnb is imposing an impossible burden of proof on hosts—one that shields problematic guests while undermining host credibility and accountability.

Mental health issues and credibility

With the benefit of hindsight, we have reason to believe that Jordan may be facing mental health challenges (which may be why he wants the dog). While we express sympathy and concern for his well-being, we also believe this raises legitimate questions about the reliability of his allegations—particularly as they run contrary to all evidence and the consistent testimony of other residents.

The first of these guests is David, a long-term tenant who has been residing on the property and assisting us for an extended period without incident. All of our guests tell us he is a delightful person and very helpful. The second is a first-time Airbnb guest who had no prior affiliation with Airbnb and whose experience we had hoped would be positive.

For your reference and further understanding, we have compiled a factual summary of Jordan’s stay below.

Frist communication from Jordan Chance:

Jordan: How’s it going Steve I’m traveling to Chicago for work and I’m looking forward to my stay! I’ve read your post and I understand your rules thank you!

Note: In this message, Jordan explicitly agreed to our rules, which are quoted, not paraphrased, here (and were written with help from Airbnb support to describe our specific arrangement:

• “A comfortable ‘English basement’ with a private entrance and direct access to the lake.”
• “It's listed as an ‘entire place’ because it is more than just a room but less than the entire house.”
• “It's semi-autonomous in that the laundry room is located in your area while the kitchen is in the common area, but you can also be a hermit in the basement.”
• “No pets”
• “No smoking”

Later communication

Jordan: Is anyone on the same floor as me?

Steve: No — the basement is all yours. You have shared access to the kitchen and common areas upstairs, and other guests will coordinate with you to use the laundry room, which is downstairs, but that’s it.

Jordan: Ok sounds good, do they have to come into my space to access the laundry room?

Steve: Yes — but they will text first. (And not into the bedroom or bathroom — just into the workstation/study area)

Jordan: Ok sounds good

Note: Jordan’s inquiry should have been a red flag, because he had already agreed to the arrangement. Our basement is an English basement, which Airbnb advised us to list as entire place because it has a private entrance, private bathroom, study area, and living area, but other guests use the laundry room, which is downstairs. We price it like a high-end room, not like a stand-alone unit, and clearly explain that people will be using the laundry facilities. Jordan agreed to this explicitly in his first inquiry, then in the above exchange.

Next communication (after his scheduled arrival, although he may have been delayed):

Jordan: Hey Steve, I wanted to inform you that I will be traveling with a service animal. He is trained to assist me with anxiety and is very well-behaved. You will hardly notice his presence. Please let me know if you have any questions!

Steve: Hey, Jordan, that’s not something you inform us about. It’s something you ask about. We have had two bad experiences with “service dogs.” In one case, the service dog attacked a neighbor’s dog. In another, the subsequent guest experienced an allergic reaction. We do accept dogs, but only after clearing it with the current guests and also requiring a $75 fee for a hypoallergenic cleaning

Jordan: Airbnb said since I have a service dog I don’t have to mention it, but I do it regardless out of respect. I’ve never had an issue with my dog. I’ll contact Airbnb no worries.

Notes: I was not fully aware of Airbnb’s rules regarding service animals, but I have nonetheless accommodated them in good faith and with mutual understanding. In every prior instance, guests have proactively informed me of their service animals before arrival, and we reached a mutual agreement on appropriate house rules.

When I received the message from Jordan, I was in an extremely high-stress situation, working with displaced farmers in rural Kenya. As a result, my response may have lacked diplomatic tone, but it was factually accurate: no previous guest has ever arrived unannounced with a dog, nor has any guest asserted a unilateral right to do so. In all previous cases, guests have communicated in advance, and we have agreed on reasonable expectations.

To reiterate, Jordan explicitly agreed to the house rules, which include shared access to the laundry area, a strict no-smoking policy, and a no-pets policy. It is reasonable to expect that a guest who agrees to such terms will disclose the presence of an animal in advance. While service animals are not considered pets under Airbnb’s rules, it is neither courteous nor practical to withhold this information until after check-in, particularly when prior communication could have facilitated a more cooperative arrangement.

WhatsApp Group Chat

Because Airbnb doesn’t have a group messaging platform, and because we often host friends and family, we maintain a WhatsApp group to facilitate communication among all guests. This system has consistently fostered a cordial and collaborative atmosphere. However, Jordan did not engage with this group at any point during his stay.

Attached are the complete communications exchanged since Jordan’s reservation began. As you will see, I introduced him to the group upon his arrival, but he never acknowledged the message. Later, another guest expressed concern regarding the presence of Jordan’s dog and sought guidance on how to appropriately address the situation. Jordan did not respond to that inquiry either.

Between these two events, there was an unrelated conversation concerning the delivery of a package.

While Rustam, a first-time Airbnb user, did not explicitly object to the dog's presence, he did express fear and requested advice from Jordan on how to engage the dog. His message also went unanswered.

Smoking Weed

As documented in the Airbnb message thread, I relayed David’s response concerning the dog to Jordan. However, Jordan never acknowledged or responded to Rustam’s request for guidance on how to approach the situation.

Within hours of that exchange, I began receiving complaints that Jordan was smoking marijuana inside the house. I raised the issue directly with Jordan via Airbnb’s messaging platform, and he responded by claiming that he was only smoking outside. Your colleagues have since informed me that I am obligated to accept this explanation at face value, despite it being inconsistent with both the complaints received and our historical experience with guests.

For context, while we enforce a strict no-smoking policy inside the house, many guests have inquired about smoking on the back porch. We have never objected to this practice, and no one has ever reported that smoke from the porch entered the house. In one prior incident, a guest raised a concern that another was smoking marijuana indoors. I addressed the issue with the guest in question, who apologized and ceased the behavior immediately — which is the typical and appropriate response.

Guests occasionally violate house rules, but most are cooperative when approached. In this instance, the available evidence — including the timing, nature, and consistency of the complaints — strongly suggests that Jordan was not truthful. I deliberately chose not to confront him on the discrepancy in the Airbnb message thread out of concern for maintaining civility and avoiding escalation.

(The sad fact of Airbnb is that, while 95 percent of all guests are wonderful, problematic guests tend to see themselves as victims, and they often take revenge with unwarranted bad reviews. As a result, with a difficult guest, we find ourselves walking on eggshells.)

My thinking at the time was that Jordan had already gotten the message and would stop smoking weed inside, so I didn’t have to rub his face in it by calling out his lie.

I did reach out to Airbnb, and your colleagues informed me that, absent physical evidence (e.g., ashes, joint butts), they are unable to take action. I was told that the testimony of other guests carries no weight. This policy is deeply flawed. It effectively requires that either I or other guests enter the guest’s private space and gather physical evidence — a standard that is both unreasonable and invasive, and which places an unrealistic burden of proof on the host and affected parties.

David’s correspondence with Jordan regarding the weed

Below you will find the correspondence between David and Jordan, which your colleague has inexplicably stated does not constitute evidence. This is bizarre, because even Jordan’s own admission—that he was smoking outside—amounts to a clear acknowledgment that he was smoking on the premises, in violation of our house rules.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that his claim is accurate and that smoke somehow entered the house through a highly improbable mechanism (e.g., a freak induction process) despite all windows being closed for winter, the fact remains that he was still smoking on the property. This alone constitutes a breach of our established no-smoking policy.

Your standard of requiring physical proof—such as ashes or joint remnants—before taking any action imposes an unreasonable evidentiary burden on hosts. It disregards credible guest testimony and admissions by the guest in question, and sets a precedent that undermines host authority and safety. Such a standard is neither practical nor appropriate for ensuring compliance with house rules in shared living environments.

I checked in with both David and Rustam bilaterally, and they initially reported no further problems with Jordan, although he never answered Rustam’s request for guidance.

Cryptic messages from Airbnb and Jordan

Jordan reached out to me about a plunger but ignored my response, and I then received a cryptic message from Airbnb about him feeling uncomfortable. Nothing specific – just a vague reference to feeling uncomfortable. Jordan never mentioned anything to me about that and stopped responding.

Next correspondence from Steve to Jordan

Jordan had also agreed to rent a parking spot, and I reached out to him to ask if he wanted to do that via the app or via Zelle. I used this as an opportunity to clarify my views on the dog, feeling that there had just been some miscommunication. My thinking was that we could have an adult conversation, so that he could assuage Rustam’s fears and provide guidance on how to behave around the dog, and we would probably laugh about having gotten off on the wrong foot. He never responded, but here is what I sent him (which you can see in the Airbnb message string):

Steve: Hey Jordan, I just wanted to touch base and see how you wanted to handle the parking spot. We can do it via the app or via Zelle.
Also, I'd like to clarify my position regarding your dog.
You caught me off guard by announcing you were bringing a dog after explicitly stating that you had read and agreed to the house rules, which include no pets.
My initial concern was about the comfort of the other guests, and they’ve said they’re fine with the dog as long as it’s quiet and well-behaved—so I believe we’re all good.
I do, however, believe you should have communicated this more clearly.
We’ve always found ways to accommodate pets and service animals, even after the incidents I told you about. But no one has ever shown up with an animal of any kind without telling us first -- especially after explicitly agreeing to the rules, as you did.
Anyway, if your dog is quiet and well-behaved, it's a moot point. I'll chalk this up to miscommunication and hope you enjoy your stay.

The two-way street

I fully recognize and respect the importance of accommodating service animals, and we have consistently extended that respect in practice — even prior to realizing that Airbnb had rules on that.

In other words, our approach has always been rooted in mutual respect and cooperation. We have never denied a guest’s request to bring a service animal. Instead, we have worked to balance the needs of the guest with the rights and comfort of others in the shared space, always striving for solutions that are fair and considerate to all parties.

That principle of mutual respect, however, must be reciprocal. Guests who bring animals, use marijuana, or erect barricades in someone else’s home are violating basic standards of civil conduct. Agreeing to stay in a hosted property — particularly one with clearly stated house rules — entails a responsibility to follow those rules and to engage in reasonable, respectful communication when accommodations are needed.

The howling dog

Given that Jordan hadn’t responded to me or Rustam and given the cryptic message from Airbnb, I reached out to David to see if there had been any incidences that would make Jordan feel uncomfortable and also to make sure Jordan wasn’t smoking weed and the dog wasn’t causing disturbances.

(David had told me that Rustam was visibly agitated by the dog and even talked of bringing his laundry to a coin-operated laundromat three blocks away).

David responded that Jordan had stopped smoking weed in the house, but the dog had, in fact, been howling when left alone. He also expressed confusion over why Jordan would feel uncomfortable:

The combination of the service dog being left unattended and howling, along with the guest’s use of marijuana on the premises and subsequent misrepresentation of that behavior, provides further evidence that Jordan has failed to uphold the mutual understanding and basic standards of conduct expected when staying in another person’s home. This conduct not only violates the house rules and principles of common decency, but it also appears to contravene both Airbnb’s policies and applicable legal standards:

1. Airbnb’s Policy on Service Animals: According to Airbnb’s Accessibility Policy, guests are not required to disclose the presence of a service animal prior to booking. However, the policy explicitly states that service animals should not be left unattended in the listing without prior approval. Jordan did not seek such approval, and the animal’s prolonged howling caused a disruption to others on the property.
2. ADA Guidelines on Service Animals: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), service animals must be under the control of their handler at all times. If the animal is out of control and the handler fails to take effective corrective action, the animal may legally be removed from the premises. Allowing the animal to remain unsupervised and disruptive is inconsistent with this requirement.

Blockading the laundry room

In accordance with the house rules that Jordan explicitly agreed to upon booking, David notified him in advance that he intended to use the shared laundry facilities. David provided several hours’ notice but received no response. When he subsequently informed Jordan that he would proceed with doing laundry, Jordan physically barricaded access to the laundry room, thereby obstructing a common area that all guests are entitled to use.

Following guidance from your colleagues, who advised me to document any violations of house rules, I asked David to photograph the obstruction and to record the dog’s howling should it recur. However, Jordan departed the premises before the dog howled again.

Attached is a photograph of the barricade, along with the relevant text communications that document both David’s attempts to access the laundry area and Jordan’s non-responsiveness.

That was the final communication we received from Jordan.

In retrospect, some aspects of Jordan’s behavior may stem from underlying mental health challenges, which could also explain his need for a service animal. If that is the case, I acknowledge and sympathize with his situation. However, such circumstances do not justify Airbnb disregarding the combined testimony of a host and two fellow guests in favor of a single, self-serving account by the guest in question.

As I told your colleague, if Jordan wants to cancel the remainder of his reservation, he can do so. I will not ask for the parking fee or for him to pay the remainder of his stay,