Do you divide up the cost per person or per rooom?

If everyone has a room (so each couple and each single person), I can see the point of going per room. Even though it would mean the people leaving their DP at home are worse of (and really should be considering taking their DP with them).
If any of the single oerson has to share? Definitively per person

But a house of that size at that expensive cost has been chosen to give the singles their own private rooms, which has bumped the cost up. If they are happy to share, they can likely find a 5 double one triple room villa at a lower cost. That villa is not the only villa in existence!

So if all 3 singletons share 1 room, that leaves 2 empty bedrooms.

Who pays for them if they're not being used.

PP seem to not be considering the entire house is being rented out. The house is £5200 to rent, regardless of whether people share a room or not, the amount of bedrooms stay the same.

The difference is that a 6 or 7 bedroom house would generally be cheaper (and there would be more choice) than an 8 bedroom house. So the costs go up for everyone by providing the single people with a private double room all to themselves.

Let's say for this group of 5 couples and 3 singles they found a 5 double bedroom, one triple bedroom villa (and £££ cheaper than the 8 bed villa). So the couples share a double room each and the singles all share the triple room - come on, singles, still happy to pay per person? After all, fair's fair... So you, 3 in a triple room are happy to pay the same per person as the couple in the double room?

I think it should be in the middle, something like £600- £650 per room if there are 8 rooms.

So there's 13 people, 5 couples and 3 singletons.

OP states it's a massive house. It sounds like there's a bedroom for everyone.

Let's say it has 8 bedrooms. A room for each couple and each singleton.

What difference does it make if the singletons share a room or not? There's still 8 bedrooms.

It's not unfair for a single person having privacy and a whole double room to themselves to pay more than two people (single or otherwise) having to share a room and not having privacy.

Lets assume everyone going on the trip is a group of friends and all are single. No-one in a relationship, no-one shagging each other etc. 6 equal single people are going. It's a 4 double ensuite bedroom house. All rooms are equal in size and facilities.

Charlie and Rob share one double ensuite room
Millie and Poppy share one double ensuite room
Jonnie has a double ensuite room to himself
Reeva has a double ensuite room to herself

Would you really expect the cost to be split equally per person when they're all single?

The entire house is being rented, not just the bedrooms, so the cost should be per person.

The rental price is £5200 altogether, regardless of how many people are going or sharing rooms.

You're all sharing the other facilities (kitchen, living rooms, garden, etc) so you should all pay an equal amount for that.

Always per person, as the couples usually get the beer rooms and obviously there's two of them. Why wouldn't it be that way? It would be so unfair on single people otherwise.

Per person, but I think that is largely by the by. This is about how you deal with people staying only part of the holiday. A single friend wanting to come for one night would have exactly the same dilemma being asked to pay £400 for one night. In fact it would be even more if you were splitting costs per room. But if they were charged per night, and just stayed 1 night, their friends (ie you) would be subsidising their room standing empty x 3 nights. I bet that wouldn't feel fair either.

We tend to organise it that people commit to paying for the whole thing or not coming. Anything else gets too complicated. But there should be an underlying spirit that people want friends to come along, and no one's trying to screw each other over. Your group needs discussion about this, not someone dictating accommodation and cost split.

Two singles sharing a room should pay the same as two people in a relationship sharing a room.

Someone (single or in a relationship) having a room to themselves should pay more than someone (single or in a relationship) sharing a room.

It has nothing to do with relationship status. It has to do with the choice for a private double room over a shared double room.

A couple should not have to pay twice as much for the same room as a single person.

Why do singles always think they are entitled to be subsised by couples? Your relationships status is not our responsibility! If you aren't prepared to pay for a private room, accept that you need to share.

Exactly. Sharing with a friend or acquaintance is not comparable to sharing with a spouse. So condescending when the marrieds fail to acknowledge this.

Why would you presume that singles are willing to give up their privacy?

This.

It's so annoying how couples always try to advantage themselves in these situations.

And suggesting that singles "bunk together" is obnoxious. Sharing a bedroom with someone you don't ordinarily live with is a strain, and not comparable in the slightest to sharing with a family member.

Singles don't need a room each either. They can share. Choosing not to share comes at a premium, because its a luxury. You're having a two person room all to yourself. (small single rooms excepted).

Many couples sleep apart at home either sometimes or always.

DH and I would happily share and halve costs, but I'm not prepared to pay double for the privilege of sharing.

One room, one cost. A bigger cost for a bigger/better room, absolutely, and a smaller cost for a small single (and I'd broadly expect a small single bedroom to cost about half the large master, so effectively each person pays for a half room). But a single in a double room needs to pay the same as two singles sharing a double room or a couple sharing a double room. It's not the couples (or two sharing singles) fault if one single doesn't wish to share, and they shouldn't bear the cost of that decision.

If all the rooms are equal, it should be per room. If couples will get bigger rooms than single people it should be per person. If single people have to share a room and couples don't couples should pay more.

How? (assuming all rooms are of equal quality)

They are each paying the same for the room, and getting the same room. The single pays more if they choose not to share because they are getting a whole private room to themselves. If they want to share, they can choose to share with another single and pay exactly the same per person as the people in a couple are paying per person for sharing a room. They can't expect to have the luxury of not sharing at the same cost as those sharing.

If the couple were two single people sharing rather than an a couple, do you still think the single with their own private room is subsidising the two singles sharing a room? Or is it just this weird notion that couples shouldn't benefit from sharing the costs when they're sharing spaces because they like spending time together.

Basically a couple shouldn't be treated less favourably than two single people just because of their relationships status. So if two single people get two rooms, then a couple also gets two rooms. If the two single people choose to share they pay half the room each. If the two people in a couple share they pay half the room each.

Or do you think two singles sharing should pay the same per person as a single having a double room to themselves? And if this is the case, are you happy being the single person sharing with another at the same cost as another single person having a private double room to themselves?

Couples share a room, but always get their first choice in who they share a room with, and it’s always somebody they’re very comfortable sharing with - their partner. It isn’t the same as being a single person who just has to bunk up with whoever else happens to be single and left over, whether you know them well them or not. It’s fine in a big group of friends who are all equally friendly with each other; it sucks if you’re the person who ends up sharing with your friend’s sister you’ve not met properly before.

If the rooms were just being allocated randomly, two people to each room, no choices about who your room partner was, I suspect the couples would instantly object to that - but it’s generally what they think single people should suck up.

But they don't need a room each. You are just being petty for the sake of it, and at the expense of making it so the single people can't afford to come.

If you had two rooms, would you sleep separately to your DH? Or would you just be trying to make a point? Seems mean spirited to me. If you share a bed at home, you can share a bed on holiday.

And you have no idea if the single people know each other well enough to 'bunk up'. I wouldn't sleep well if I had someone unknown in my room/bed.

What a selfish attitude. PP means everyone on the holiday pays the same and is able to afford to go.

If it’s per room then the singles are subsidising the couples (for the overall stay, the bedrooms being only part of the property).

Fwiw I’m part of a couple and wouldn’t expect a single friend to pay the same amount as we’ve paid for two people.

I don't think I can answer until you know the cost of the entire rental.

Rentals like that are generally not by room, it's a full cost per night. So 4 bedrooms, £800 per night would be £400 for the weekend. Per person sounds like they're trying to cover their own costs as a "booking fee".

Per room, so if singles want to save £ they can bunk.

It's really not.

It means couples subsidise singles, unless everyone is happy for people in couples to have a room each...

Per person is much fairer.

If people don't want to share, they have to pay a premium for that. It's absolutely their choice.

If we're paying per person, DH and I would like 2 rooms, please (which obviously bumps up the cost for everyone as the number of bedrooms is generally the main indicator of price and a bigger house will be needed!). Is everyone OK with that? Because we apparently are when its a single person demanding their own room at no extra cost, bumping up the costs for everyone.

You can't possibly expect me to pay the same for half a room as someone else pays for a whole room? Obviously, I'd expect adjustments to be made for a master ensuite versus a small single, but most often nowadays villas have lots of gorgeous double ensuites, and all rooms are broadly equal. Why should a single person get to choose not to share and only pay half price for their room?

Realistically, a middle ground is probably what needs to be aimed for, with a set per person cost then a per room cost (or the room cost being adjusted in line with the size/facility of the rooms if they are significantly different).

But why should couples always subsidise single people's choice not to share? Why should we pay double for the same, just because we're in a couple?

Singles sharing should pay the same price per person as a person in a couple sharing.

Singles choosing the luxury of a whole room to themselves should pay more than anyone, regardless of relationship status, who is having to share, simply because they are getting the luxury of a private room, rather than the inconvenience/lack of privacy of a shared room.