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My friend feels that the son’s 1 week per year allocation should be withdrawn because he can’t be trusted.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

Not actually true. Married people can have their own things. Be that savings, property and income. Many decide not to treat money and assets that way during marriage but legally you can own something in your own right. Therefore you can make decisions about it.

It’s only when they get divorced that they are treated as marital assets. Death complicates things as well.

I've gone with 'stop them all using it', but within that that they are welcome to go anytime there is room for them to stay, so this could be with the owners there (without any additional guests) or it may be empty but this isn't a guarantee. Remove the offer of exclusive use, they are welcome to come when there is room with the possibility that the parents might turn up if they fancy even if they hadn't planned on being there.

What a total piss taker that son is. He alone should be singled out. Not the others.

I think banning them all is harsh. One son made the mistake so all the siblings should not be penalised for it and for some, saving on accommodation may be the only way they can afford to go on holiday. The son should have some consequences like losing his week for a couple of years, not a lifelong ban or asking him to pay for it. I'm assuming he pocketed the money his friends paid which should have been yours.

Well, first things first. The children should be given the weeks each year that the villa is free, and to pick one each. If friends and her DH don’t know their dates a year in advance, they don’t have the ability to offer free choice of dates - which is completely normal. The children get it if and when it’s free, at relatively short notice, or not at all.

Secondly, ground rules. The villa is a home, not an Airbnb. This is the time to be absolutely clear about such thing.

Thirdly, I think the errant DV should be given another chance and asked to contribute to the ongoing costs of villa out of the week’s rental he received. It’s not a timeshare, and it certainly wasn’t his timeshare. If he doesn’t agree to cough up, he forfeits all rights to it again.

So is all the children lose their right to go it should be because timetbling is becoming a nightmare. Mayer there’ll be the odd week here and there when friend and DH know they definitely won’t be there (eg because they have to be somewhere else) and those weeks are first come first served. But otherwise, no. And, errant child has to make good and agree to play by the house rules going forward otherwise he can never go again.

Was the son ever told not to do this? Was he ever told "you can use it but you can't share it with others?"

This

Thanks for all the responses. To the person that said it was actually me. ( I wish I owned a villa). My friends are Irish and have European passports.
i think I’ll advise her to let the son know he crossed a line and ask him never to do it again… the fallout just isn’t worth the agro otherwise.
All family dynamics are different.
Their kids do go on other occasions but it’s when my friends are there. They also have an additional week each so that they can have a family holiday without their parents there.

The obvious answer is they are all told that any “renting out” is not on, if they find out it has happened again, they may all lose the privilege. Therefore it’s everyone’s responsibility to ensure it doesn’t happen again. And I’d be asking for the rent money paid by the friend to be handed over. Cheeky git.

I agree with this post. I would also insist that the son gives his parents all the money he charged his friends. It can be used towards buying something the villa needs, or to pay a bill.
I'd ban the son from 'his week' for three years and review it again after this period.
Son is a cheeky fucker and needs consequences.

I can't imagine owning a villa and not letting my kids use it to so I wouldn't stop them. The parents have another 48 weeks of the year.

I think in these circumstances I'd get a ring doorbell or a camera at the entrance so they can make sure this doesn't happen again. I'd be telling the son he owed us what he took off his friend for rent or he wasn't going again and if it happened again he would be losing the right to lose it on his own. I still wouldn't stop the others if he did though.

Ring doorbell is a great idea… ill suggest that aswell

137 responses and no-one has mentioned the Mexican house thief yet? Standards are slipping, MN!

I would read all of them the riot act, say that using their week in this way is unacceptable, and carry on as before.

Why his father has not already done this is just bizarre.

It's not your friend's son, it's her husbands. He should have spoken to his son about this as soon as it came to their attention.

Weird.

DH & me had a villa in Cyprus & did similar - gifted each of our adult children a week there every year. None of them took the mickey, except our oldest son using the car & leaving the petrol tank on red.

We also allowed friends & family to use it at mate's rates - eg: the cost of cleaning the pool, water, electricity, cleaner etc for the time that they were there. It worked well, though I used to have to keep a spreadsheet of when people were using it & sometimes we weren't able to use it when we wanted because someone else had booked that time, but we preferred it to be occupied than sitting empty & we still had to pay for everything to be maintained, utilities etc whether it was used or not.

I understand what friend's DH means by 'hassle'. We sold it about 8 years ago when DH had a heart attack & retired as we no longer wanted the hassle of keeping it up. We also found that we spent all our time there decorating, finding people to fix or maintain things such as the Air Conditioning & boiler, cleaning (although we had a cleaner, without someone there to point things out, it wasn't to my standard of cleanliness) rather than relaxing by the pool.

He wasn't "sharing" it - he was selling his week.

well he was sharing the use of his designated week. I am trying to unpick whether he was ever told that the use was only for him or not....because to me its two issues, one is allowing someone else to use it and the other is charging for that use.

Wow, no good deed goes unpunished!

I hate things like this. I absolutely detest people who take the piss in this way. Reminds me of school when you'd lend something to a friend, and she'd go and lend it to another girl, who would then break it.

I agree with the majority of pps - why punish everyone because one guy has been a git? That said, if the husband wanted to put an end to the arrangement anyway, that is of course what he should do. Sounds like he has the patience of a saint!

I think it would BR to tell all the kids that the villa is for family use only, and they must either use their designated week themselves, or give it up for the year. It's not an asset to be rented out or sold. Since this policy hasn't been stated before, let the son get away with it, but make it clear that it's not going to be allowed again.

I’d just let it go tbh. Couldn’t get worked up about it.

For me, a lot would depend on the attitude of the son when questioned/challenged about what he had done. If he apologised and assured them he wouldn’t do it again, then that would be the end of the matter. If he was arsey about it, then he wouldn’t be allowed to go again. But I certainly wouldn’t punish the other 3 , that’s totally uncalled for. How did the parents find out about the son’s transgression?
BTW, I think they are extremely mean for only ‘gifting’ one week each to their children!

If they have a UK passport they are only allowed to go to the canaries for 90 days then a gap of 90 days before they can go again.
So why is it a pain for their children to go.

A Ring doorbell is what I was going to suggest too.

Let the kids know you've added it for general security when you're not there.

Tell the son never to do it again because unlike an Air BnB, your personal possessions are there. Let him know if he does it again he will no longer have a week to use without you there.

I think it depends on the terms of the gift.

in general the recipient of a gift is able to do what they want with it - use it, give it away or sell it.

If one of the children couldn’t, or didn’t want to, use the villa in their week, it doesn’t seem necessarily unreasonable for them to sell it on to someone else, so that they could still benefit from the gift that year.

It seems that the child in this case was treating the villa as if it was theirs for that period - almost as if it was a timeshare. It sounds like the rules/limits on the use of the gift should have been clear from the start.