So who's in the right with this parking conundrum?

[parkingpalaver]

I'm kind of sitting on the fence here so I thought the MN jury could decide who's being unreasonable (I am not one of the people involved)

There is a shared house with 6 occupants and two driveway spaces, and some spaces usually free in the street. It's just a case of whoever gets home first gets the spaces on the drive and all the occupants are satisfied with this arrangement.

One occupant (A) who lives in the house is going away for the weekend. His car is parked in the street. His mate is coming over in his car and they are getting the train to their destination. His mate parks on the drive as everyone is at work, and when the other occupants get home they complain about the random car taking a space.

They send message to A asking why his mate has parked on the drive, and he says "what difference does it make, my car could have been on the drive, but I parked in the street, and my friend used the space on the drive".

Who's being unreasonable?

YABVVVVU to initiate a parking thread without a diagram.

I shall partake no further until you have rectified your work.

Dismissed

A and his friend are being unreasonable - the car does not even belong to any of the occupants. A’s friend should have parked on the street.

I would say occupant A- first dibs on the drive applies should only apply to rent paying residents and he should have consulted the other housemates first (who I’m guessing would have said no). Selfish just to tell his mate he can park when he represents only a sixth of the household.

Wot no diagram?

The guy who parked on your drive is BU. He doesn't live there and your flatmate parked on street. Only tenants paying rent get to park there.

Whingers are UR. It makes no difference whether As car is there or his mates car. One of them would be there either way.

I think it would have been kind of them to park the car on the street at the time if there was a space free, just to free up the space for the others. But they haven't really done anything wrong I don't think!

Lol at NO DIAGRAM

Agree that friend should have parked on the street as he was just leaving it there for the weekend. Or he should have left the keys so someone could move it.

Anyone who shares a house with 5 others and expects anything in the way of rights or privileges is BU. Aside from anything else, odds are there will be at least 1 greedy or entitled arse in the mix.

They're not in the wrong, but to have parked on the street would have been more neighbourly

Your builders ARE VvvvvvU - why make two spaces and 6 houses!! 🙄

Custardbear from the op I think it's 1 house with 6 people.

It's normal for 1/2 spaces per house where I am for new builds

They're all unreasonable. Kind of rude to take up someone's limited drive parking. Kind of arsey for housemate (?) to have not said "sorry about that". Pretty entitled of occupants to be so he up when obviously they know there's no guarantee of a space.
Perhaps mate should buy a token "sorry" gift

But perhaps even if they’d both parked on the street, there wouldn’t have been enough room for all the other cars?

A diagram showing the exact number of spaces to scale is required here.

I would say occupant A is unreasonable. He could have told his mate to park in the street, so that those who pay for the house can park on the drive. That being said he does also pay rent, so he could park on the drive, but he didn't.

A and his friend are being unreasonable. No question.

I take it he doesn't care that his housemates think he's a prick?

Diagram???
And yes, A and friend are BU. It'd be different if friend was visiting and parked in empty drive way, but to park there and then go away and leave car there is all kinds of wrong.

They should have left the driveway free for the individuals who are going to be home.

Nothing wrong imo, the housemates can just pretend that A s car is on the drive and his mates is on the road. Same difference.

A is BVU. If one person is away, it should always be benefit to the other people I.e. less of a queue for the bathroom, more parking space, TV free.

But I will not approve my opinion until a diagram is present.

I get the argument that only paying occupants should use the drive, but in this case it makes no physical difference if A was entitled by being in first to leave his car on the drive. It just would have been a different car on the drive all weekend.

Better would be that the agreement was to park on the road in those circumstances and leave the drive for those in the house over the weekend.

The mate is unreasonable not to have some other way of getting to the train station.

If they are going away for the weekend they should've both parked in the street so they abu and yabu for not providing a diagram tut tut

Didn't really think a diagram was necessary haha. Still getting mixed responses I see so not really conclusive. I couldn't work out how to do a vote!

The most considerate thing to do would be to park both cars on the street if it is easier to find a space during the hours A and friend arrived/left, particularly as the tenants will probably be using their cars over the weekend/unloading shopping etc so a bit of a pain if they can't find a space nearby and it makes no difference to A and friend if they park further down the street. Logically though, they might be causing just as much or more inconvenience to neighbours by doing that...

If there wasn't a free space, the clever thing to do would to be to have predicted that psychologically his housemates wouldn't give a second thought to his car being on the drive all weekend (as per the unofficial agreement of first come, first served) but wouldn't want a stranger parking there so swap the cars over before they left.

Ultimately, A parking on the street and friend parking on the drive is no different to what happened though. A is right.

The gracious thing to do now would be apologise and explain his reasoning rather than argue back.