To think MIL should replace DD's hair products?

[comeandhaveteawithme]

MIL recently took DD away on Holiday, for which I am of course very grateful.

I packed her a hand luggage backpack and a small suitcase. I obviously put any liquids over 150ml in her suitcase, which I was told would be checked into the hold.

Once at the airport, they decided DD's suitcase was small enough to go on as hand luggage so they didn't bother checking it in.

Subsequently, all of DD's hair products were confiscated and thrown away. She has long, thick hair that can be difficult to manage so I buy her certain products that we've tried and tested that work on her hair, the products total about £20. Also confiscated was a bottle of sun cream that costs £7.

We don't have a lot of spare money, and still have four weeks of the Summer Holidays left to go and need any spare cash we have. I can't really spend an extra £27 replacing these products that were almost full when I packed them and have now just been chucked in the bin. My Summer Holiday plans and budget are very carefully calculated. £27 is lunches for the week.

It is reasonable to think MIL should have bought her new stuff? I'm not going to ask her, but should she have replaced them? or AIBU and should just suck it up because she took her away and treated her?
DH just thinks it's all my fault and seems to think it somewhat amusing that I "still don't know liquid rules at airports" 🙄

I'd be more irritated at your DH's comment tbh. But if Mil knew the case should have been in the hold, then she should have queried it at the desk.

That's really annoying Op.

Does MIL know it was expensive stuff?

DH just thinks it's all my fault and seems to think it somewhat amusing that I "still don't know liquid rules at airports" 🙄

That would wind me up!

Well he can do all the packing in future then!

I must admit I've always decanted stuff to save space!

Mil made a mistake, I wouldn't ask her but if she offered it's fair game. Wouldn't personally take expensive products abroad, anything could happen.

Why won’t the OP say how old the child is and what sunscreen and hair products the child used on holiday?

How did a suitcase not get checked in? Last time I flew I took hand baggage only - a small suitcase. It was checked in and - due to a packing error by DD which we now laugh about: bacon sandwiches in tin foil in a plastic carrier to eat in the departure 'lounge' as it was 3 a.m. and we didn't want to eat airline food, thanks - went into the line that needed to be opened and looked through. I took out all liquids and put them in a separate bag which I had ready (less than 150 ml, because hand luggage!).
Your MiL has her brain out of gear. She ought to pay for the products. DH should explain to her the rules about liquids - she clearly doesn't have a clue. I am also a tad worried by an airline/airport that doesn't check hand luggage - don't fancy their planes!

I’m speaking from my own experience of actually having children with “hair care routines”.

Also from having had 4DC and knowing that if they are young you can’t assume they have a clue of the value of anything.

If her case was small enough for cabin luggage there’s no way I would think she had several full sized hair products in a tiny case. Hold or cabin, there’s no need to take full sized products.

Your husband is being a bit arsey but he’s also correct but the rule is 100ml not 150ml so…

If her case was small enough for cabin luggage there’s no way I would think she had several full sized hair products in a tiny case.

That's a possibility.

What luggage did MIL have?

If she needed to check stuff in, why not get rid of both cases though?

Oh OP, I feel for you! I remember being in such a tight budget that something like this would be so stressful.
I hope the day comes soon when you can go into the shop and just buy what you fancy with out having to add it up in your head as you go and weigh up options.

Once at the airport, they decided DD's suitcase was small enough to go on as hand luggage so they didn't bother checking it in.

Who is the " they" in this sentence?
Airline staff? Not MILs problem.
Daughter? Not MILs problem.
MIL? She obviously didn't know there were liquids in there?

YABU

And then MIL paid for this holiday, and you want compensation for shampoo??

I didn't know you could just decide to take a carry on if you've not booked it on. I'd let it go to be honest for the sake of £27.

Another provocative thread when the Op doesn’t return.

You're being unreasonable. Your MIL seems to know the rules, it was your responsibility to tell her the items were in the suitcase so she knew the suitcase needed to be checked.

Totally your fault and you're now expecting her to pay you back AFTER taking your daughter on a vacation big enough to require air travel? Seriously?

Goodness - I'm glad you're not my daughter-in-law. Look at the bigger picture of mother-in-law treating your daughter to a lovely holiday, not stressing over £27. Have you factored in the fact you've not had to feed your daughter during the time she's been away? (tongue in cheek) if we're being penny pinching on finances-that must more than equal itself out. You are being extremely unreasonable here.

It’s just one of those things and no, she shouldn’t have to replace them.

Just get some cheaper hair products to tide your DD over for a while and buy more suntan lotion.

She hasn't been back. She's not speficially not saying anything, she just hasn't returned to the thread yet.

If she paid for the holiday then I would forget about it. She probably ended up replacing the suncream anyway.

MiL is rude. She should be replacing the products as it was her decision to carry on the bag. It shouldn't even be a discussion.

I can see why it's really annoying and will have quite an impact on you. But I don't think many people would realise hair products you're sending with a, I assume, young child would be a matter of financial make or break. It would be really unreasonable to make an issue of £20 (the suncream is a holiday expense anyway as presumably MiL provided during the holiday and you shouldn't have been expecting that to come back) when DD's had a free holiday.

Did you or your MIL pay for DD’s holiday? I don’t think you can expect her to replace the products, especially if she paid for travel.

Exactly!
I don’t think @NeedUCAdviceplease is a very financially literate person. If your budget is so tight that £20 is a problem (the sun cream was replaced anyway), you wouldn’t splurge on expensive toiletries. You would focus on saving money where possible so that unexpected expenses would not be such an issue.
It is not a matter of budgeting, it is a matter of affording. If by OPs description that money for lunches is now a problem because of a £20 unexpected expense, I would argue she cannot afford these products.

Google is your friend.

Frankly, many posters on this thread show a complete lack of basic common sense when it comes to spending money.

Whatever one thinks of splurging on expensive shampoo for a child, it’s downright alarming that such vanity purchases could leave the OP without enough money for something as essential as food for family lunches for the week.

Equally absurd is the notion of sending large quantities of costly shampoo away with DD on holiday. Surely it would be more sensible to send only the amount needed for the trip.

Paying to check in a bag simply because the child insists on taking expensive shampoo is wasteful in the extreme. The cost of checking even the smallest bag into the hold is around £100 return.

I think yabu and acting very entitled sorry.

Your mil took your dd on an abroad holiday at considerable expense.

I have thick hair and to keep it long is a nightmare in terms of maintenance tbh. For this reason I keep it shorter. I never spent a lot of money on hair products, the idea you need hugely expensive products to keep hair looking nice is a very recent concept fuelled by social media but it’s mostly unnecessary. Keep it short if you don’t want to spend the money

I'm pretty sure OP does want to spend the money. She just doesn't want to have to spend it twice because someone lost her stuff.