Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Who is in the right here? Cost sharing argument

198 replies

JoelyJoe · 27/01/2025 10:38

I would be very interested in people's opinions on this...

A large group are going on a ski holiday together. Different people are doing car shares to the airport.

Kate and Ben (couple), offer lifts to Gary and Simon (both single). Gary and Simon both have their own cars, and in reality would rather take one of those as Kate and Ben's is a bit ropey. But they don't want to be impolite, and accept the offer. Everyone is sharing costs for petrol and airport parking.

On the way back from the airport after the holiday, the car breaks down. Cue massive hassle, hours of waiting on the motorway for AA pick up. Kate and Ben don't have AA membership so want Gary and Simon to use one of their pick up allowances. They both refuse as they think Kate and Ben should have had their own cover for their car. Kate and Ben then have to pay full, non members price for pick-up, and want Gary and Simon to share the costs.

Again, they refuse, on the grounds that the car could have broken down at any time and it is not their responsibilty to cover their maintenance costs.

Kate is furious and sends an email a few days after the event saying how disappointed she is in them.

Gary and Simon are not budging, saying thay both have perfectly good cars of their own, which they pay to maintain and cover for breakdowns, and they should not be expected to cover Kate and Ben's expenses if they chose not to do this.

Who is right?
YABU - Gary and Simon were in the car, they should share the costs.
YANBU - Kate and Ben are responsible for their own car.

OP posts:
mewkins · 27/01/2025 11:52

Choccyscofffy · 27/01/2025 11:50

Gary or Simon were not obliged to do anything - offer lifts, offer call outs tokens, nothing.

Edited
Show quote history

Sure they weren't. But why the hell wouldn't you use your aa membership if you were stuck on the side of a motorway? Nuts.

Choccyscofffy · 27/01/2025 11:53

user1492757084 · 27/01/2025 11:50

All costs should be borne by the couple. It is their car.

That said, Gary and Simon could have been more useful. They could have used one of their recoveries or, I think even better, should have insisted that they drive them all in one of their well maintained cars to begin with.

Why should they insist?

There is a weird entitlement to Gary and Simon’s time/assets at play here.

Dueanamechange2025 · 27/01/2025 11:54

Whaleandsnail6 · 27/01/2025 10:59

Gary and Simon should have said from the off they wanted to use their own cars if they did not want to car share

Gary and Simon were also pretty crap in not using one of Thier pick ups. I would not refuse that for a friend who I was with

Katie and Ben should have had their own breakdown...surely that is what ant responsible car owner has as standard?!

I dont think Gary and Simon should be expected to pay towards repair costs of a car that is not theirs but I dont think they sound like friends I would want

This pretty much sums it up.

Choccyscofffy · 27/01/2025 11:54

mewkins · 27/01/2025 11:52

Sure they weren't. But why the hell wouldn't you use your aa membership if you were stuck on the side of a motorway? Nuts.

Show quote history

Because only they know how many entitlements they have. Maybe they were only allowed one or two call outs a year.

I called the RAC three times last year.

cardibach · 27/01/2025 11:54

I clicked that it was the car owner’s responsibility to sort their own car, it equally I’d have used one of my pick ups - it would have got everyone home faster for a start, plus if they maintain their cars as well as they say they are unlikely to reach their limit of pick ups in the year.

AlexisP90 · 27/01/2025 11:55

The car would have broken down with or without Gary and Simon in it.

Gary and Simon being in the car had no bearing to the car breaking down.

Therefore, the cost lies with the couple imo

Tisthedamnseason · 27/01/2025 11:56

I'm not sure how this pick up allowance works but if they could have used it, that would have been ideal and it's petty to refuse on the grounds that the couple should have sorted out their own cover.

However, since they didn't use it, I also don't think it's reasonable for the couple to ask them to cover any costs.

BloominNora · 27/01/2025 11:56

Both are unreasonable.

Gary and / or Simon accepted the lift and should have used their AA membership. The fact that they didn't, even though they had concerns about the car makes them selfish and given they also had to wait hours smacks of cutting off their nose to spite their face!

In fact, if they were that concerned they really should have said happy to share lifts but let us drive.

But the fact that they were selfish does not make it OK to ask them to contribute to the costs - breakdown cover is as necessary as insurance and Katie and Ben really should have had it in place - especially if they were driving a banger (and could afford to go on holiday)

Mulledjuice · 27/01/2025 11:56

DysmalRadius · 27/01/2025 10:47

I'm also wondering at accepting a lift to avoid being impolite, yet refusing to help with recovery which seems like a massive fuck you from two people who are so concerned with manners. Why did neither Simon nor Gary suggest driving one of their well maintained and breakdown-covered cars instead?

This

Strictlymad · 27/01/2025 11:57

CasperGutman · 27/01/2025 10:46

I don't think it's reasonable to demand Gary and Simon pay, but if I'd been a passenger I'd have happily used my breakdown membership. I'm vaguely aware there's a limit on the number of recoveries I can have each year, but I've never worried about it. It's more of a fair use allowance to me, and I've never actually hit it. Most years I don't use the cover at all (touch wood, fingers crossed, etc!).

This! If they aren’t calling out every week it would have been kind to use a pick up allowance.

Cosyblankets · 27/01/2025 11:58

Anyone else find it odd that both individuals refused?

AccordionedWhileMallBurned · 27/01/2025 11:58

niadainud · 27/01/2025 11:28

That's a bit of an odd attitude. Do people only get your sympathy if they're on NMW and holiday at a caravan park?

Show quote history

No, what I'm saying is that if they can't afford breakdown cover, or breakdown cover with sufficient call-outs, there are cheaper holiday options than ski-ing if they want a getaway. They should 'cut their cloth according to their means'.

WimpoleHat · 27/01/2025 11:58

TossieFleacake · 27/01/2025 11:33

Gary and Simon are a pair of stingy bastards ... of course they could've used one of their pick ups and then everyone would have been less inconvenienced.

However, absolutely no way should they contribute to Kate and Ben's recovery fee or breakdown subscription... their car = their cost.

Sounds like a group of rather selfish friends if you ask me.

Perfectly put!

LadyQuackBeth · 27/01/2025 11:58

Nobody behaved particularly well, but it sounds like they were all tired and it was a hard situation. Kate and Ben should have either got breakdown cover, should have let it go by now, but at least they were nice to offer a lift and did put all the effort in.

Gary and Simon are not very nice people - not offering anyone a lift, accepting one but then saying behind K&Bs backs that they'd rather go in their own, better, cars. Then refusing to call out AA - something they were only "tough" enough to do because there were two of them, so a bit of ganging up (both individually were too wet to say they don't want a lift in the first place).

Kate and Ben are a but more chaotic, but are by far the nicer people here. If you were hiring them - go for Gary and Simon, but as friends Kate and Ben are the ones you should be siding with.

Choccyscofffy · 27/01/2025 11:59

BloominNora · 27/01/2025 11:56

Both are unreasonable.

Gary and / or Simon accepted the lift and should have used their AA membership. The fact that they didn't, even though they had concerns about the car makes them selfish and given they also had to wait hours smacks of cutting off their nose to spite their face!

In fact, if they were that concerned they really should have said happy to share lifts but let us drive.

But the fact that they were selfish does not make it OK to ask them to contribute to the costs - breakdown cover is as necessary as insurance and Katie and Ben really should have had it in place - especially if they were driving a banger (and could afford to go on holiday)

In fact, if they were that concerned they really should have said happy to share lifts but let us drive.

Why should they drive the couple?

Maybe Kate and Ben are the type of people who don’t reimburse petrol costs.

There is a weird entitlement to Gary and Simon’s driving here.

Original poster
JoelyJoe · 27/01/2025 11:59

heddy007 · 27/01/2025 11:52

So OP… are you Kate & Ben or Gary & Simon… if none of these do you have an opinion on who you think is in the right here?

I am none of them, but I know all of them.
I am firmly team Gary and Simon, but I do think they were a bit inflexible on the use of their AA accounts!
Interesting to read all the responses... 😄

OP posts:
jolene7 · 27/01/2025 12:00

It's wild that the guys were so mean spirited that they wouldn't even give up an AA pickup (even if restricted) for mates who had driven to the airport for group. I agree they shouldn't have to pay but it's shockingly tight to not be willing to share a bloody AA pickup.

lalaloopyhead · 27/01/2025 12:00

Unless they have already used a number of call outs themselves, I really don't understand why Gary/Simon didn't use their AA membership in this situation - apart from anythng else surely it would have benefited them by getting assistance quicker?? I would not have throught twice about using my own membership in this situation.

The repairs however are another thing entirely and there is no way that anyone should be liable for these costs because they happened to have accepted a lift in said car - that bit is a really strange (and very unreasonable) way to look at it from the couple.

Choccyscofffy · 27/01/2025 12:00

JoelyJoe · 27/01/2025 11:59

I am none of them, but I know all of them.
I am firmly team Gary and Simon, but I do think they were a bit inflexible on the use of their AA accounts!
Interesting to read all the responses... 😄

Show quote history

I’m guessing Kate and Ben are entitled in others ways too?

Gymmum82 · 27/01/2025 12:00

Both wrong. Kate should not expect money. Gary and Simon were arseholes not using their AA pickup.

I’ve been with the AA for about 20+ years and the free pickups has always been FAR more than you’d ever need. So unless their cars were continuously breaking down there was no reason not to use it. They are twats

Choccyscofffy · 27/01/2025 12:02

Gymmum82 · 27/01/2025 12:00

Both wrong. Kate should not expect money. Gary and Simon were arseholes not using their AA pickup.

I’ve been with the AA for about 20+ years and the free pickups has always been FAR more than you’d ever need. So unless their cars were continuously breaking down there was no reason not to use it. They are twats

Maybe Kate and Ben were awful in the car to Gary and Simon, which influenced their decision.

You have no idea what happened on the journey.

Maybe Gary or Simon only had 2 call outs a year and had already used one? Maybe they only had 1 call out allowance?

I definitely remember a limitation of 2 call outs on a basic policy at one time.

OverthinkingOlive · 27/01/2025 12:02

JarvisIsland · 27/01/2025 11:24

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The couple could have covered their shitbox car for breakdown and recovery. It’s on no-one but them.

People who don’t do things then expect others to essentially be their insurance policies seem to swan through life like this and it’s pretty entitled. I’d sit at the side of the road in my ski gear to teach them a lesson because I’m petty like that. Car maintenance and cover appropriate for its age and my use is an expense of running a car. I’d not expect anyone else to cover that and anyone who does is a CF.

This. Ken and Ben are twats

Azzywhatty · 27/01/2025 12:02

They should 100% have used their breakdown cover. Total spite not to.

BaoLi · 27/01/2025 12:03

If the passengers has membership which would cover pick up here, I would 100% use that for the roadside assistance. Kate and Ben then cover the cost of any repairs etc. That is just friendship in my book, it would be quicker and more efficient for everyone. I would then just silently kick myself for not trusting my gut and taking my own car.

BloominNora · 27/01/2025 12:03

Choccyscofffy · 27/01/2025 11:59

In fact, if they were that concerned they really should have said happy to share lifts but let us drive.

Why should they drive the couple?

Maybe Kate and Ben are the type of people who don’t reimburse petrol costs.

There is a weird entitlement to Gary and Simon’s driving here.

Show quote history

It's not an entitlement its a reaction to the part of the OP which said they accepted the lift despite concerns so as not to seem impolite.

Therefore one can assume that politeness is important to them (although the actions around the AA membership perhaps negates that) and if someone offers you a lift which you are prepared to accept in principal but you are concerned about their car or driving then it is only polite to offer a lift in return if you are going to say no!