@dilwithvil There are two competing principles, both valid:
- The villa is a business asset, not a spare bedroom.
Peak season = income. Blocking out a week = a real financial loss, not an abstract one. It’s not “sharing a holiday home”; it’s giving away revenue.
If you earned that money through your own investments, management, and risk, then the idea that you should simply forfeit income because someone is “family” doesn’t automatically hold water.
- Family often expects “family rates” or “family access”.
Some families operate on the principle that shared assets = shared benefits. Others operate on the principle that personal assets = personal boundaries.
Neither is wrong. But mismatched expectations cause friction.
The complication here is your parents vs. his parents - this is where the emotional politics kick in. Your parents gave you the early inheritance that made the villa possible, are part of the reason the villa exists and so you feel gratitude and reciprocity.
Whereas his parents contributed nothing financially, want peak-season access without paying, don’t want low season and don’t want to pay even half the market rate and they want to plan well in advance. From their perspective, they see “You let your parents go for free in peak season, but not us.”
From your perspective “My parents helped create the asset. You’re asking me to give up income for no reason other than entitlement.” Both perspectives make emotional sense. But only one aligns with financial reality.
Let’s say peak-season weeks bring in £2,000–£4,000 (depending on the area). Giving that up is not “a favour”; it’s a gift. If your in-laws wouldn’t normally spend that amount on a holiday, then what they’re actually asking is “Please subsidise our holiday using your business income.” That’s not a small ask. And actually its worse than that as they don't want to contribute anything so not only would you not get the income but presumably you would still need to cover your costs, such as insurance, cleaning turnaround, laundry etc. And the fact they want peak season planned in advance for free and won’t consider low season or even pay half …makes it clear they’re not asking for kindness; they’re asking for priority access to your income stream.
So lets look at the fairness question, what are the key distinctions between parents? Your parents’ free week = repayment of a debt of gratitude as they helped create the asset. Whereas your in-laws’ free week = a financial favour.
They contributed nothing. Those are not equivalent situations. If the villa came from your husband’s side, you can bet they’d feel differently.
I think your stance in offering low season, or last-minute cancellations …is already generous. You’re not saying “never”. You’re saying “not at a cost to me”.
That’s a perfectly fair boundary. But where your husband comes in is the real sticking point here. If he doesn’t want to challenge his parents, wants you to absorb the financial loss, wants you to treat his parents like yours, but doesn’t acknowledge the origin of the asset then the issue isn’t the villa. It’s the emotional labour and financial sacrifice he expects you to make to keep the peace. You’ve already said in other contexts that you often end up subsidising his family. This fits the same pattern.
Your position is financially rational, emotionally consistent, and fair. If anything, the in-laws are being unreasonable by wanting peak season, wanting it free, wanting it guaranteed, and refusing any compromise. Family doesn’t get to demand access to your income stream.
The real question for you is do you want to hold the boundary firmly and accept their annoyance, or compromise financially to keep the peace?
There’s no wrong answer. Just consequences.