To expect Sunday Dinner as the agreement?

[TipJarTroubadours]

Small details changed but the short of it is:

1. We allow people to stay in self contained accommodation for 'free'
2. The only 'cost' is attendance to Sunday dinner
3. Aibu to refuse to let someone stay (or charge them market rent) if they don't attend dinner

The long of it is

DH and I own a residential static caravan site. It has been in DH family a long time. It has great transport links to a major city.

We allow close family/friends to stay rent free whilst they attend uni in the city/start a new job. We have had 15 different people over the years, some for six months, the longest five years.

Currently house DS and nephew who are both at uni and DHs best friends daughter and her partner who has just started an apprenticeship. All four attend Sunday dinner, as have the 15 beforehand.

(For those that are interested, I cook the meal and then they take turns to make/buy a pudding and wash up (most goes in the dishwasher) I have had one with severe allergies who used to bring their own food, and one that was fussy so I used to make them beans on toast every Sunday. )

My sister's son has been living with us since September, I was very clear on the rules- it might seem odd but for a 10k saving a year I expect attendance at one meal a week.- they both knew about this.
Since starting he has attended one, preferring to go to the pub/gym/game on a Sunday. It has been raised with him and we have said if he doesn't attend then we will charge him rent (we have other uni students renting although they are all mature)

I have gone to my parents for half term and have just met my sister and told her the same. My parents and her think I am completely unreasonable to ask him to attend Sunday dinner, I think they are completely unreasonable to expect me to house him for free after agreeing to my rules ( there are costs involved for me, utilities etc plus not being able to rent it out)

I've said he has to attend tomorrow or I will bill them from now until Christmas and if it isn't paid will evict at Christmas.

Am I being unreasonable to expect my nephew to do what he agreed to in return for accommodation? (I don't think I am, even if expecting to attend dinner is unreasonable, he has agreed to the terms, he could have just rented halls)

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.

While I might think that the terms of the deal are a little odd, they are neither illegal nor immoral. The adult in question is not being compelled to attend. He can choose to attend, or to pay the £10,000 instead or to find other accommodation. The offer came with a condition that was accepted. Even if it's not something you or I would do, a contract is a contract, and he is cutrently breaking it, putting his accommodation at risk.

I really don't understand why you are getting such a hard time OP.

No-one is forcing them to live there, the deal is clear upfront, and as you say, none of the others in the past have had an issue. Some people value the opportunity to spend time with different people, etc. a taste of 'communal living' or whatever, while saving some money.

Sounds like he agreed to the deal for the free rent, but had no intention of joining the weekly meal - sounds like a CF to me!

If a friend or family member doesn't like you (or your cooking) enough to eat an evening meal with you once a week, why the flip do they think they should get to live rent free???

In summary, no, YANBU to expect him to stick to the agreement; alternatives are to pay rent, or find somewhere else.

Everyone nattering on with bullshit like "transactional" and "imbalance of power" and all that nonsense: do none of you hold jobs? pay a mortage to a lender or rent to a landlord? attend classes? run a small business?

Yes - what's your point? It's not the same thing in the slightest.

A touch over-invested, perhaps?

Perhapart the nephew could pay £5000 and get let off half the obligatory dinners?

Nothing generous about this, OP

You’ve made her deal clear and that’s fair enough. If this Sunday dinner thing is really important to you and you’re willing to evict him over it then that’s your choice.

I do think you sound overbearing, unpleasant and ridiculous… but not necessarily unreasonable. If you’re happy to ruin your relationships over a Sunday dinner then that’s your choice. I don’t know anyone else that would make the same choice, but it’s still your choice to make.

Oral contracts are still contracts.

YANBU to ask people to keep an agreement.

Your rule however is weird, controlling and downright creepy. Forcing people to attend Sunday lunch in order to have somewhere to live feels bordering on a bit abusive. If the person concerned was at all vulnerable, I’d be genuinely concerned for them.

You still haven’t said why you’re wanting to force your own nephew to eat your food every week. Are you fun or a laugh to be around?

Anyway, life calls so this will probably be my last reply tonight, however I will update tomorrow as I hate it when threads are left hanging.

Hanging 🤣🤣

Surely to God you've posted everything you possibly can on the subject?

OP has enabled voting and it's a 51/49 split at the moment.

It’s very controlling… you aren’t doing them a favour if you expect something in return.
I get family meals are important to you but to effectively blackmail someone to attend is very bizarre.
Why would you want someone there who feels that they have no other choice and they don’t really do they.
Are You particularly lonely?

I’m going to buck the trend.

No, not unreasonable in the slightest to expect someone to upload their end of the agreement.

Also, not that weird to have expectation of participation in family life while staying with family (which is essentially what they’re doing). You’d get far less reaction if they were staying in a room in your house and your expectation was that they join in family life some of the time. This is just a wider area version of that.

You want family accommodation you do family life. You want private arrangements, you pay private rent. It’s not rocket science. Or weird.

OP, you won’t have time to update the thread tomorrow, you’ll be up to your neck in it doing the spuds and Yorkshire puddings.

Agreed. You’re taking advantage of someone who would likely struggle to afford to live on the condition they perform for you ever week. Each guest must all clap and jump and wash the dishes. All masked as generosity and don’t you dare question it.

She can either give these things freely and be remarked as generous OR set stipulations and conditions for mandatory weekly group activities and be considered weirdly controlling. Especially when the condition is that without the attendance of these meets guests are asked to move and find accommodation elsewhere.

Voting is 50:50 as are the comments.

Those who think the OP is being U seem hell bent on telling the OP that “everyone” thinks that m, when that’s very clearly not the case.

I get it. I think it's nice. Even if it wasn't an official rule, I would have made the effort to participate in family life if an aunt was giving me free accommodation. It's quite practical for people who stay to be told how they can participate in family life without feeling uncertain to what extent.

I think it's frankly sad that so many people can't see that here.

It's a great "deal" for your nephew, and a lovely opportunity to be closer to his family. It's his choice to follow your rule or not, and he knows what will happen if he doesn't. YANBU

Your own mother thinks you’re being unreasonable but you won’t have it will you! I suspect you are not good company.

You are entitled to set the terms but you are unreasonable to expect that anyone thinks you are serious - it sounds like a joke.

It’s a level of control that is actually very disturbing.

It's a very idiosyncratic requirement, but he agreed to it in return for free rent, so YANBU.

I presume it's to maintain the polite fiction that he's staying with you because he likes your family/ wants to be part of the wider family in terms of behaviour and connection, not just genetics, rather than because it's free? If he can't be bothered to play along with something as harmless as a family meal once per week then he seems pretty ungrateful for the free self contained accommodation.

Actually, forcing people to do this is very controlling. Having worked in safeguarding, if there was any sort of vulnerability involved on the part of the people staying, there would be concerns. It’s absolutely not the same as a simple contract.

Indeed a contract is a contract. I just wonder how much of the weirdness was actually spelled out to him, ie you MUST attend rather than we'd like you attend. Semantics aside, just WHY?

Even after all these posts I can't understand why you want to force your young relatives to eat a meal with you on Sundays.

You are not being unreasonable. You laid out the terms of the informal contract and he agreed to it. He can't renege just because it suits him. Teach him a lesson about this now, and he won't fall foul of the same issue when he's older and it might matter more.

Totally get this and shocked by the horrible comments you’ve had.
If someone is a close enough family member or friend to live rent free then they shouldn’t have a problem joining for Sunday lunch. I actually think this is a really smart way to anchor and connect with those you live with each week (and also a good way to catch our scroungers who have no intention of having a relationship with you and are just using you for your business!).