Friends villa issue

[Foodieasfuck]

My friend has asked for my opinion and I’m struggling to advise.
She and her husband own a villa in the Canary Islands. Her husband bought it when he retired 5 years ago. They have been together 30 years and each of them has adult children (of their own).

They use the villa all the time and love the flexibility of being able to go whenever it suits them so they decided not to rent it out. It is a home from home with all their personal belongings in it.

They gifted each of their adult children 1 week each there per year for free, which works well usually. Sometimes their ‘kids’ also join them when they are there but they each have a week ring fenced so that they can use it too with their own families.

She has just found out that 1 of her husbands kids didn’t actually go himself last year. He let his mate and his family use it instead (without telling them). She has since found out that he charged them for the privilege!

My friend feels that the son’s 1 week per year allocation should be withdrawn because he can’t be trusted. Her husband thinks (to save any agro) they should just stop them all using it as “it was becoming a pain anyway”. It’s causing all sorts of issues between them and they’ve gone from quite a peaceful couple to being ‘at war”.
It’s a bit of a lose/lose situation!
I’m struggling to advise her.

Whilst I agree with her that the son shouldn’t be trusted again, I can see that singling him out will continue to cause issues with her husband.

not really an Aibu more of a what would you do?
YABU = stop son using it
YANBU = stop them all using it

I sort of agree with this apart from the potential licensing/insurance issues that can come from renting it as a holiday let as opposed to just having close family/friends staying e.g. the owner has a potential liability if someone gets injured so should consent to all stays.

I also don’t understand the scorched earth approach.

He’s conflating two separate issues and by dealing with it this way he risks alienating (or at least pissing off) all the children, especially if they find out about the incident that triggered the ‘ban’.

They need to jointly speak to the son who sublet. Make it clear that what he’s done - whether he realises it or not - is a breach of trust and has upset them both very much (and is potentially illegal). Lay out ground rules that prevent it from ever happening again.

The PITA aspect of letting each child have a free family week is entirely separate, and should be addressed as such. They may want to just say they may be at the villa, rather than always vacating and having the inconvenience of planning their own stays around everyone else. Or else agree on a set month when they all have to take their weeks consecutively, rather than at random time throughout the year.

It would be very unfair to punish everyone for the misbehaviour of one. To make it less of a pain everyone puts their week in the calendar in January so everyone knows what the year’s bookings look like and any tweaks can be made then. Son gets omitted for next couple of years with a serious conversation to be had about going forward and being trustworthy.

Do you mean the Long-Stay Visa valant titre de séjour – Visitor (VLS-TS) or something else? That's not specifically for holiday home owners at it ticks you over the 183 days and can cause tax/residency implications.

"He has form for being soft and would rather banish them all than deal with issue."

The "and" in that sentence should surely be "but". Because, why would punishing everyone for the actions of one person be the "soft" way? If anything, it's being super harsh to those who have done nothing wrong.

I'd probably want to know more about why the OH's son thought for even a moment that it was OK to sublet the property for financial gain. I'd probably take it from there. Maybe insist he pays for his next visit, then wipe the slate clean.

I'm soft, but that means I could never make others pay for the bad actions of one person. Just no.

It really nothing to to with you or me and it is straightforward isnt it. Adult kids are told gift is for personal use only 🤷‍♀️

Unless they have EU passports they can only go for limited amount of time each year so I can hardly see how 2 weeks out of 52 are causing an issue....but..... it's ultimately their place to do what they want with it but personally, withdrawing the week from the non-offending sibling seems very harsh and is likely to cause an issue between them. I would tell DS who sublet the house in no uncertain terms how awful his behaviour was and this is why he won't be holidaying there alone in future. And agree that if they've been married for many years it's a joint asset regardless of who bought it when.

The worst kind of teacher in school was the one who knew which student was in the wrong, but kept us all in as a punishment. All it led to was feelings of resentment, anger and lack of respect by 29 kids, and the 1 naughty kid feeling pleased they had company in their punishment.

You friend's backboneless H is the same kind of wimpish person as the teacher. Punish them all. All it will lead to is resentment from the other 3 who have respected the arrangement and his son feeling fine as he got the financial benefit when he could, and no personal repercussions.

While I think he's a CF for charging, and he should have checked with his dad first, if the son has been 'gifted' a specific week, I can why he might think that it's his week to do what he wants with.

No need to ban him, just be clear about the boundaries from now on.

To be honest, I find the whole thing of 'gifting' a specific week a bit odd. My parents had a small apartment in Majorca - we were free to use it whenever we wanted, as long as we checked first with mum and dad that it was available at the time. We could stay a for few days or a month as long as it didn't clash with their plans. We just paid the cleaning/management fees for the time we used it.

I find it odd that they 'gifted' their own kids a week free a year .... if I owned a villa abroad my kids could use it whenever they wanted for nothing.

well yes quite. why wouldn't they be free to go if it was sat empty? Surely that's the beauty of not having to rent it out for the income. I'd be quite pissed off if my parents had a family holiday home and I was only allowed to use it for 1 week of the year (& I say that as a parent of now adult children so thinking more about them being in the same position of the children & how they would feel)

If it genuinely is becoming a pain to give away the 4 weeks then maybe this is a good opportunity for them to stop it, the kids can still visit while the parents are there after all but if he's just saying that so he doesn't have to punish just his son then that a shitty move

I agree and I think they could’ve avoided the headache of coordinating weeks if they just said “use it whenever but check with us first”

Both seem a bit scorched earth as a reaction.

The son’s behaviour was outrageous and if I was his Dad I would be furious and say you ever pull a stunt like that again and you are barred, as well as telling him the insurance and other liabilities that come into play as soon as money changes hands.

If the whole arranging the weeks is too much then that is a separate issue, and they could just look for a different system that puts their (the couple’s) needs first. They can surely identify 4 weeks that they wouldn’t be there, and make those available? Especially if they are happy for family to join them while they are there if none of the available weeks suit.

Unless your friends have EU citizenship, how can they use it for more than the allowed number of days a year, anyway?

The son did a very bad thing, but the incident seems to have exposed fault lines in the relationship. What’s that about?

Even if they have Spanish or EU passports or some form of residency they will need to be counting their days to know which country they will be tax resident in that year.
But I think it would be fine to say that it isn't working to hold those weeks open any more and going forward they'll arrange holidays on an ad hoc basis and may be around at the same time as when the children are staying. That means they can try and be there or be expected to be there when the subletting son goes.

I assume this is to stop arguments and so the DC can ‘book’ in.

I can imagine the adult kids would end up arguing as they’d each want it during the school holidays and where do you cross the line - what if someone is planning to go there for a month but someone else wanted to go at the same time.

Also it sounds like the owners go together and separately with their friends and so end up using it pretty often, so they’d get a lot less use out of it.

I think the husband is being biased in favour of his son, cowardly and unfair.

It’s not fair for the other siblings to lose out because one has done something very wrong.

A third option is to request that the son gives his parents the money he illegally earned, and make him promise to not do it again - or all siblings will lose the privilege of using it. And tell the other siblings to pressure him to keeping to his word. Then resume allowing them all to use their week as normal.

Surely there's a mid-point somewhere like "Son is not getting to use it for the next year / 2 years as you abused our trust" rather than just jumping to 'ban all the kids'?

And the idea that losing 4 weeks of the year usage is "a pain" is ridiculous

Did your friend's husband tell his son that he knew what he had done, as soon as he found out about it?

You say her DH bought it? What’s the legal arrangement in Spain for one half of a married couple owning something? I think it complicates things a bit if her DH bought it, and it’s his son that’s the problem.

We have similar set up with family holiday home - we are allowed two weeks of the year and then if its free we can ask to go for more time. The two week limit was put in for a few reasons, In laws had another holiday home before this and it was taken advantage of by family and friends, when this was bought after the other one was sold, stric rules were put in so that wouldn't happen, plus one of husbands siblings would take all the prime dates and leave the leftovers for us, it caused a few rows so rules needed to be fair. If one sibling needs more days then its checked to see if no one else is using it at time, no one person takes all the bank holidays etc We are allowed to invite friends to stay but we need to let in laws know just for heads up
I think your friend needs to talk to your son, the fact he charged them is what is wrong in my opinion but also weird that they didn't know he didn't go - Rules and boundaries need to be put in place. Though i agree one week in canaries is a bit mean, why not give two weeks and then if its empty they can go and use it

It sounds like the parents use it a lot though and like to go at the drop of a hat sometimes, if you have 4 adults with families wanting to use it too that could be annoying. The OP did say the kids were always welcome to come and stay while they were there so it's not like they can't use it at all, just not have it all to themselves. That's fair enough imo

Was it clear to the kids that “their week” was only for their personal use? If not, I can understand the thinking a bit: Mum and Dad have given each child a gift if a cheap week in a villa. All the others have been able to use the gift. Son hasn’t been able to/can’t afford to, so converts the gift into cash. Lots of people do that with other gifts.

Why not just tell the son that they are not happy with him subletting. He can only use it for his own family. Be straight up about it and direct.

I don't think anyone would disagree with this, but any reasonable person would go to the parents first and ask if it was ok for a friend to use it. The secrecy suggests it maybe wasn't the first time / planned to happen again.