Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Are WE being unreasonable, or is she?

52 replies

EvilTwins · 01/04/2012 12:39

Bit of background... My extended family has got into the habit of celebrating big birthdays by having a family weekend away. We've been doing it for just over 10 years - first one was for Uncle's 60th. They happen about once every 2 years. Last one was joint Uncle's 70th and Dad's 65th and was at Center Parcs, though in the past we've done hotels. Coming up is Auntie's 70th and Mum's 65th, for which we've booked a large self-catering house. There are 4 cousins (inc me) - 3 of us have 2 DCs each, aged between 3 and 10 yrs, and the 4th is married but they made a concious choice not to have any DCs (he has 2 from a previous marriage but they're in their 20s and choose not to come) The childless couple have dogs, and the oldest DC is very allergic to them. When the weekend away was first discussed, the isue of the dogs came up, and my cousin knew that she would not be able to bring the dogs to stay in the same house as the allergic DC. Alternatives were discussed (inc she and her DH and the dogs staying elsewhere and joining us for party etc) and rejected. However now she is saying that she and her DH should not be expected to pay as much as everyone else for the accommodation as they have to pay extra for kennels for the dogs. They've known about the break since October (it's in May) and we have to pay for it v soon. The objections have only been raised in the last couple of weeks. My sis and other cousin are really cross about it as she's making it a "dogs vs children" issue and is being quite unpleasant about it. We've said no - we're not paying more - on the grounds that she agreed to it in October and is only objecting now. She's saying she's not paying the same as everyone else and that's her final word.

Who is BU?

OP posts:
Sarcalogos · 01/04/2012 12:43

Technically you are I think.

Don't hate me, in my family we split things per adult regardless of who has children/how many. (so a married couple pays twice as much as a single person).

BUT every family has to negotiate there own way, and to be fair to the other couple although they are being a bit tight, they have got an extra expense to pay and perhaps they can't afford it.

Panamama · 01/04/2012 12:45

I think she has been unreasonable in the way she's handled it. It's unfortunate that they have to pay more for the dogs to be boarded, but if they were unhappy with the cost or found it difficult to cover it they could always have asked in October if it would be okay to split it between everyone. I'm sure bringing it up in a civil way while the discussion was still ongoing would have been better than saying when it came to paying that they were going to pay less and that was it. Sounds like she's been stewing over this for a while and has now decided to act on her feelings when she knows it's a choice between covering the costs or not being able to have the trip because the full amount hasn't been paid

catsareevil · 01/04/2012 12:46

Could you split the cost of the kennels?
What would you have done if they had said that they would bring the dogs?

lucertola28 · 01/04/2012 12:46

She is, she basically wants the rest of you to fund her dogs' expenses.

What did she do with them before, I imagine she could not have brought them to hotels either.

Suggest a neigbour minds them for a weekend if kennels are too expensive.

Presumably she and her dh will get the same kind of room, food and activities as the rest of you, so why should they pay less?

Don't give in to her, if she does not pay her share she does not go, why should you all get extra expense because of her dogs!

EvilTwins · 01/04/2012 12:48

They agreed at the beginning that they would not bring the dogs. Also, those of us with children are paying more anyway because there are 4 of us and only 2 of them. Sorry if my OP didn't make that clear.

OP posts:
SydSaid · 01/04/2012 12:49

How are you splitting the accommodation? It it per adult, with the kids going free, or is it per person?

If the kids are going free then I think the cost of the dogs should be factored in and split evenly (otherwise they are subsidising the kids).

If you are paying for the kids places, then they should pay for their dogs.

Sirzy · 01/04/2012 12:49

I assume you are already paying more than them due to needing to accomodate your children aswell?

EvilTwins · 01/04/2012 12:49

lucertola - the dogs technically belong to her DH. They have been married about 5 years, and we haven't done a hotel break since before then, so it wasn't an issue.

OP posts:
SydSaid · 01/04/2012 12:50

Ah, cross post.

So if you are paying extra to include the kids, then they should pay for their dogs.

PosiePumblechook · 01/04/2012 12:50

For the sake of harmony it would be best to offer to pay £25 each for the dogs. What's the point of all getting together if there's already a squabble?

Sirzy · 01/04/2012 12:50

X posts. Then yanbu

mellowcat · 01/04/2012 12:50

I too think you should offer to split the costs of the kennels, one for all and all for one and all that.

EvilTwins · 01/04/2012 12:51

mellow - should we also ask this couple to split the cost of the kids' rooms then? We're all paying for our own kids.

OP posts:
DizzyKipper · 01/04/2012 12:54

If you're having to pay for your children then they should pay for their dogs. That seems quite straightforward and fair to me.

perceptionreality · 01/04/2012 12:55

I think she is being unreasonable because she said originally she wouldn't bring the dogs and they are her responsibility, not yours.

catsareevil · 01/04/2012 12:55

The only reason that they arent bringing the dogs is because of your child.

What if she decided that she will bring them after all?

mellowcat · 01/04/2012 12:55

No, sorry I posted before I understood that you were all paying for your own children. I think she is being very unreasonable in this situation.

perceptionreality · 01/04/2012 12:56

Exactly - agree with DizzyKipper

youarenotbeingserious · 01/04/2012 12:58

What dizzy said

EvilTwins · 01/04/2012 12:59

catsareevil - not my child, but that's not the point.

If she decided not to bring them, she'd be stuffed because the accommodation is "no pets" - obviously this was something which was discussed right at the very beginning, and she agreed to it. It was suggested that she find alternative accommdation close by and bring them if she really wanted to, but she declined.

OP posts:
EvilTwins · 01/04/2012 12:59

Oops - if she decided to bring them.

OP posts:
Shriekable · 01/04/2012 12:59

If one of the couples with DC had to leave their kids at home with childminder, would she be prepared to pay towards the child care costs? Of course not, and you shouldn't have to help her pay to have her dogs cared for. YANBU.

perceptionreality · 01/04/2012 13:00

catsareevil - it was all discussed before and she agreed not to bring the dogs. Anyway I wouldn't want to stay in a house with other people's dogs whether allergy was a consideration or not.

imo she is only now saying she wants to pay less because she's realised she has to come up with quite a lot of money now and is annoyed about it.

NarkedPuffin · 01/04/2012 13:01

Stipid question, but she does know that you all pay extra per child for the accomodation doesn't she?

cocolepew · 01/04/2012 13:01

If you are paying extra for your Dcs then they should pay for their dogs.