Page 8 | Who is in the right here? Cost sharing argument

JoelyJoe · 2025-01-27T10:38:17+00:00

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.

HotCrossBunplease · 27/01/2025 15:47

Bloody hell did Kate piss in Gary’s fondue on holiday?

Yes, technically, Gary and Simon were right. But if these people were really friends they’d have found a way to get the whole thing sorted as quickly and sensibly as possible. I bet neither Gary nor Simon ended up using their free allowance that year anyway, but they could always have said to Kate and Ben “OK, if my brand new Audi breaks down 6 times this year and I’ve run out of free pickups, you’ll pay me, right?” Thus doing a kind thing but transferring the risk to Kate and Ben of the kind thing ending up costing Gary money.

They sound like mean inflexible arseholes.

latetothefisting · 27/01/2025 16:00

Choccyscofffy · 27/01/2025 13:51

@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.

Edited

well, we already know their cars weren't particularly old, or were at least in much better nick than the one they were driving in, from OP.

In my 18 years of driving I've had maybe 2 call outs in total, and I've always had older cars.

particularly given the fact these were people who could afford a skiing holiday it seems highly unlikely that all 3 of them drove cars so old and dodgy they'd think they need multiple call outs a year. Besides which they're saying "a year" but if they were on month 11 their policy with the RAC, they could have had another 2 call outs and then renewed with AA and started from scratch again if they were so desperate!

I don't even necessarily think they should have done it to benefit Kate and Ben - if I was one of the passengers I'd have done it to benefit myself, because the remote chance of breaking down another 2 times in my own car wouldn't outweigh my desire to get home after a holiday, flight, etc rather than being stuck in a car on the side of a motorway bickering with friends.

HotCrossBunplease · 27/01/2025 16:05

latetothefisting · 27/01/2025 16:00

well, we already know their cars weren't particularly old, or were at least in much better nick than the one they were driving in, from OP.

In my 18 years of driving I've had maybe 2 call outs in total, and I've always had older cars.

particularly given the fact these were people who could afford a skiing holiday it seems highly unlikely that all 3 of them drove cars so old and dodgy they'd think they need multiple call outs a year. Besides which they're saying "a year" but if they were on month 11 their policy with the RAC, they could have had another 2 call outs and then renewed with AA and started from scratch again if they were so desperate!

I don't even necessarily think they should have done it to benefit Kate and Ben - if I was one of the passengers I'd have done it to benefit myself, because the remote chance of breaking down another 2 times in my own car wouldn't outweigh my desire to get home after a holiday, flight, etc rather than being stuck in a car on the side of a motorway bickering with friends.

Edited

Show quote history

And there was a way for Gazza and Simbo to protect themselves against future costs, assuming they were all mates and not just random holiday acquaintances.

ClockingOffers · 27/01/2025 16:11

Choccyscofffy · 27/01/2025 15:06

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?

Show quote history

Err, No. I took it that K&B were doing them a favour offering them both a lift, because they’re kind people. Why didn’t either G or S offer to take their car instead if their cars are so much nicer?

G&S would have had to both pay ALL the petrol costs and the airport parking fees in full. They’ve already saved themselves money by only paying a quarter towards those costs. Plus less risk of their car get stolen or damaged by not being parked in an Airport car park which are not particularly secure.

G&S are definitely the cheeky fuckers in my view.

Choccyscofffy · 27/01/2025 16:14

ClockingOffers · 27/01/2025 16:11

Err, No. I took it that K&B were doing them a favour offering them both a lift, because they’re kind people. Why didn’t either G or S offer to take their car instead if their cars are so much nicer?

G&S would have had to both pay ALL the petrol costs and the airport parking fees in full. They’ve already saved themselves money by only paying a quarter towards those costs. Plus less risk of their car get stolen or damaged by not being parked in an Airport car park which are not particularly secure.

G&S are definitely the cheeky fuckers in my view.

Show quote history

If Kate and Ben were doing Gary and Simon a kind favour why did they ask then for petrol money and parking costs money?

HotCrossBunplease · 27/01/2025 18:58

Actually Kate and Ben were not unreasonable to be miffed that Gary and Simon would not use their free call out. But they were unreasonable to ask them to pay part of the non-members’ call out fee.

Ctu24agent · 28/01/2025 18:32

I voted uanbu … they should have helped as it was everyone waiting for assistance. However, knowing the couple had a dodgy car… they should have had provisions in place should anything happen.

HauntedPencil · 28/01/2025 18:47

Agree that it was mean not to use their call outs and I would be a bit bitter over that honestly. However I wouldn't ask them for money.

MadMadaMim · 28/01/2025 18:48

I would have said that I'd use a pick up allowance but if I needed a pick up down the line that I had to pay for die to using one for their car, then they'd have to cover that cost

Khayker · 28/01/2025 20:08

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!).

How would they have managed if there wasn't anyone else in the car with them, Kate and Simon would pay, nobody else? Responsibility for maintaining a car rests with the owners who caused the wear and tear in the first place, not someone who had a one off lift with them. No logic in the statement that two people who were merely having a lift and were in the wrong place at the wrong time for a short while should foot the bill for damage already done by the owners over what is probably months if not years.

Laura95167 · 28/01/2025 20:40

When I got breakdown cover I could have covered my vehicle, myself or both.

I only covered my car because well it's mine and I assume anyone giving me a lift have their car covered to one degree or another.

Simon and Gary mightnt have been able to get the car towed. Tbh it wouldn't occur to me to have offered a lift and then made my cars breakdown my friends problem and had the cheek to ask them for money. I'd have been offering to get us all a takeaway tea as an apology got the inconvenience

fingerbobz · 28/01/2025 20:41

The couple are cheeky fuckers

Laura95167 · 28/01/2025 20:42

Some break down services also have an excess charge per call out

Cherrysoup · 28/01/2025 20:51

Couple should obviously pay and not ask the two blokes. Saying that, my RAC covers the car, not me, so I could/would have done a call out.

Xmasxrackers · 28/01/2025 21:26

Why did neither of the single guys offer to drive everyone in their car?

CasperGutman · 28/01/2025 21:32

Khayker · 28/01/2025 20:08

How would they have managed if there wasn't anyone else in the car with them, Kate and Simon would pay, nobody else? Responsibility for maintaining a car rests with the owners who caused the wear and tear in the first place, not someone who had a one off lift with them. No logic in the statement that two people who were merely having a lift and were in the wrong place at the wrong time for a short while should foot the bill for damage already done by the owners over what is probably months if not years.

Show quote history

I didn't say anyone "should foot the bill". I said that personally, in the circumstances described, I would have happily used one of my paid-for allowance of breakdown recoveries. That's the point of having personal membership (where "you're the member, not the car").

Now, this wouldn't have been because I was obligated to, but because it would be a kind thing to do for a friend (and out of self-interest to get home sooner!).

Dogsbreath7 · 28/01/2025 21:33

I had recovery a few months ago- only needed a jump start but received a text message a few hours later saying if called out for same issue there would be a charge. All policies are different but anyone NOT having recovery cover are idiots. Running an old unreliable car without recovery is beyond lunacy.

Jumpers4goalposts · 28/01/2025 22:40

They are all being unreasonable. The couple shouldn’t expect the costs to be shared, the two guys should have used their call out allowance. Surely you have the AA membership for person in the car for exactly this situation if your a passenger in a car and need a pick up. Equally surely you’d do it because you’re a friend anyway.

Khayker · 29/01/2025 02:35

CasperGutman · 28/01/2025 21:32

I didn't say anyone "should foot the bill". I said that personally, in the circumstances described, I would have happily used one of my paid-for allowance of breakdown recoveries. That's the point of having personal membership (where "you're the member, not the car").

Now, this wouldn't have been because I was obligated to, but because it would be a kind thing to do for a friend (and out of self-interest to get home sooner!).

Edited

Show quote history

Sorry quoted the wrong person

anon4net · 29/01/2025 02:50

I used my allowance to help someone out who was so ungrateful and chastised me that where they were towed to cost them more money than had they been able to get to a garage nearer their home.

They have about 4x our household income plus dc have all flown the nest so no in the midst of the financially strapped years and refused to pay for AA.

As for your scenario I'd have let them use my AA call out but not have paid towards their costs for any repairs etc.

cantthinkofausername26 · 29/01/2025 02:57

Sound like a bunch of arseholes... are you sure they're friends?

Deeperthantheocean · 29/01/2025 18:08

They should have had their own really vit I would helped with the pickup bit expected them to help with any extra costs. X

Goodtogossip · 04/02/2025 14:01

Kate & Ben should cove the costs of their own car. Whether or not Gary & Simon were in the car or not it would've still broke down & incur costs to the couple. I think Gary & Simon were a bit mean not using their breakdown cover though. even if they had limited call out cover they surely wouldn't be using it themselves all the time.