Who is in the right here? Cost sharing argument

[JoelyJoe]

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.

I think this is the bullshit part though: how is it impolite to say, "thank you for the offer but I was going to take my car, why don't you jump in with us instead?"

Because Gary and Simon didn’t want to give grasping Kate and Ben a lift.

And they were right not to.

I bet Kate and Ben would have ‘forgotten’ to pay their share of petrol and parking.

You really don’t know about their policy.

That's not quite true - if Gary or Simon's pick ups are included in the price of their cover, and are limited to a certain number of call outs. So if they'd used one for this, they might have needed to pay some time in the future.

Saying that, I can't imagine not saying to my friends "We can use one of my call outs!" I might later have thought, "Urgh, that's one less for me" but I'd see that as a small price to pay to help out a friend who had done the driving for me.

Gary and Simon should have voiced their concerns before accepting the lift. Their reaction to the choice that they made was petty and sanctimonious, which is also rather impolite. Of course you help friends out where you can.

Ben and Katie should have purchased a membership and then used it immediately. I am surprised that the friendships have endured to be honest.

You’re saying Gary and Simon should have foreseen whether Kate and Ben have breakdown cover or not?

Why is that Gary and Simon’s responsibility ? are Kate and Ben not adults?

Simon and Gary were dickheads for not offering to use their recovery memberships. I wouldn’t think twice about it.

To be honest it’s a clusterfuck of unreasonable behaviour all round.

I'm pretty much with you. Obviously the responsibility is for the car owners but if Gary and Simon had decent cars a) they could have just volunteered to drive themselves if that's what they preferred - until recently I've been the one with the "worst" car in my group and it's very normal when we're going somewhere for a friend to say 'Shall we take my car, it's bigger/more comfortable/etc." I wouldn't be offended by that, in fact I'm usually pleased it saves me the effort of driving! They can't bring that up as part of their rationale if they were happy to accept the lift in the first place.

and b) again if their own cars were decent, the chance they would need multiple call outs that year is very low, so using one of their pick ups would have made much more sense - apart from anything else surely it would have been nicer for them, themselves, to get moving as soon as possible rather than sit in the car debating about who is paying for what.

It's very cheeky to expect the passengers to contribute to costs but given they had a free call out they were very unlikely to use, it does seem very petty of them not to take advantage. Even if only on the basis that they got the couple to agree beforehand 'Look I'll use my pick up for now but if for whatever reason I do need a fourth pick up (presuming they got, say, 3 free), you'll pay for that?"

Gary and Simon shouldn't be using their breakdown memberships or paying.
Kate and Ben are CF

@latetothefisting

given they had a free call out they were very unlikely to use

We really don’t know this.

My car is old but solid except for the tyres (which go flat) or when things get old (battery, calliper etc).

I called RAC 3 times last year. If I had an allowance of 2 call outs a year, I would want to keep them for my own emergencies. I do remember when some basic policies allowed 2 call outs.

A lack of planning by Kate and Ben does not constitute an emergency for Gary and Simon.

The intro post states that G&S didn’t want to take K&B’s car as it was ropey - they had the info to make an informed decision about travelling in it. As such, it wasn’t a huge surprise that it broke down.

Yes, absolutely K&B should have had cover and maintain their vehicle and that maintenance is squarely their responsibility however in the situation that they were in, knowing all of this, it’s just a decent thing to do. I’ve used it with friends cars when it’s happened - it’s just what you do isn’t it?

If you were in the way back from a trip and your mates car broke down, would you make them pay for recovery or just use yours which is going to be faster as a member..?

If you were really worried about losing a free pick up, then perhaps have an agreement that if it comes to it then they then cover that cost if and when that happens. That is the egalitarian and kind thing to do. It also helps yourself to actually get home in a decent time frame.

My inference is that S&G wanted to be right and to make a point here. Perhaps there is a back story.

Gary and.simon are not responsible, but they were a bit mean not using their AA call out. It kinda was an emergency.

The intro post states that G&S didn’t want to take K&B’s car as it was ropey - they had the info to make an informed decision about travelling in it. As such, it wasn’t a huge surprise that it broke down.

Why would Gary and Simon be able to make an informed decision about Kate and Ben’s breakdown cover? Kate and Ben are adults, this was their car and their responsibility.

I don’t know why you’re passing the buck to Gary and Simon.

Membership covers the person, not the car. Either of the guys could have used their membership. It's nasty that they didn't.
The couple could have paid for them to subsequently upgrade their membership if they were that botherered.

I am not passing the buck at all and have clearly said blame is with both. Assuming you are neither Simon or Gary I’m going to move along from this having already adequately explained myself

Whilst Gary and Simon are no way responsible for the costs to the car it was also a pretty dickish move not to just use their AA membership as it would have been quicker and to them not cost a penny!

It sounds like the couple annoyed them a bit on holiday and this was a way of getting back. That said it's not their cost to cover.

So, Gary and Simon (or Ben and Ken, I've lost track...) cut their nose off to spite their face, and waited for hours on the side of the motorway amidst massive hassle (allegedly) just so they could save one of their (un)limited call outs that they will never need, other than if they're travelling in another vehicle not belonging to them, because they have such new, reliable and well maintained cars? And they still bring this up in conversation, what must be more than ten years later (because there's never been limited call outs for The AA within at least that time, maybe longer)?
Insufferable pricks.

How can Gary and Simon be to blame?

Who did AA ask to pay the emergency charge, Kate and Ben or Gary and Simon?

I've had AA cover since 1998 and don't recall ever having a pick up allowance.

That said, if their own cars were so much better, what were the odds of them even reaching an arbitrary limit? And did the recovery cost more for the couple as there were 4 people abc luggage to recover?

The two singles should have offered to drive if they had concerns about the car. They just didn't want to drive if they are honest. Very easy with hindsight to say "oh I never wanted to go in their knackered car but didn't want to be impolite". Absolute bullshit. They were glad someone else offered. They weren't shy about refusing to use their AA cover or help with costs, yet were too meek to offer to drive? Yeah, pull the other one - it's got bells on.

I feel bad for the couple who were trying to be helpful and kind, and as their friend I would have offered to contribute towards the pickup. My car broke down when I didn't have membership - my friend used her cover to get me help (she was with me) and then I took out my own policy immediately. It never occurred to her not to use that... the whole point of AA membership was that YOU are covered - not the car, so it covers you for any vehicle you are travelling in. In fact, you pay more for that privilege - I seem to remember policies for just the car with other companies were much cheaper.

Legally, it was for the owners of the car to pay. Morally, the friends should have used AA membership or contributed to the cost. Is it really worth losing a friendship over being a tight arse?

All of that. Obviously Kate and Ben are totally unreasonable to expect the others to pay, but two people in the car could have made everything a lot easier (for themselves as well as Kate and Ben) but refused to. That's pretty sad.

And yes, I've had AA for decades and have always run very old cars (my present one is 13 years old) and I've never run out of callouts. If the other two had much nicer cars, the odds if then running out were tiny.

I’ve just googled and Which are saying there are breakdown policies that only allow 2 call outs per year.

I’d drop G&S like a hot potato as they sound like prize Dickheads.

Let me guess, they happily accepted the lift because they didn’t want to risk their nice cars getting nicked from the airport car park and they only each paid 1/4 towards the petrol and parking fees. So they already saved themselves quite a few quid as a bonus. That will have pleased them immensely.

To refuse to use their AA membership to get the broken down lift car towed home, beggars belief and they’re clearly NOT very nice people.

Sadly, they sound like a couple of Tossers I used to know who were unbelievably tight. They were best mates, possibly gay, and did everything together as if they’re a couple but lived separately.

When it was their joint turn to host, they’d buy a single 12” supermarket pizza and serve a slice with a few bits of sliced cucumber and tomato between 6 adults. No other salad accompaniments or garlic bread etc. We used to have to buy a takeaway on the drive home as we were always starving. I eventually stopped inviting them to ours and slowly dropped contact with them. They’d argue about the bill on a meal out down to the last penny and were just very awkward. They were both qualified lawyers and on good salaries so it’s not like they were struggling on a low wage. You could see the glee in their faces when they thought they’d ‘won’ a good deal. Urgh!!

Have you forgotten that it was Kate and Ben who asked to liftshare in their car and Kate and Ben who asked for money for their breakdown emergency for their car?

What was the point in then buying personal breakdown cover rather than cover only for their vehicles, if they had no intention of issuing it?

I always get personal cover, because I travel in other people's cars relatively frequently, and if they break down I'd want the convenience of someone coming out quickly. If someone offers me a lift I don't check that they have breakdown cover, so having personal cover makes sense to me.

The mistake was that the guys didn't want to be impolite ... its not impolite to want to take your own car. They will learn from this.
The owners of the shit car should be paying for the call out fees and repair.
This is all totally ridiculous.