AIBU to not let in laws use my villa for free in peak season?

[dilwithvil]

I have a villa in Europe by the beach that I own independently of my husband. It’s effectively a high-end Airbnb in a very popular area and is usually fully booked from mid May until late September. It’s one of my income streams (I’m a SAHM but I manage several investments/assets, and this is part of my income). My husband also earns a very good salary, for full context, but all of “my spending” (coffee with a friend, make up, clothes, dentist) is paid by me from this income. I earn more than my husband.

My in-laws would like to use the villa for a week in peak season for free. My view is that peak season is when the villa earns money. If I block out a week for them, I’m not just “sharing a holiday home”, I’m giving up a week’s rental income.

I’ve said they’re very welcome to use it either in low season, when bookings are much quieter, or at very short notice if a peak-season booking unexpectedly cancels (which almost never happens).

They’re unhappy with this because they want to be able to plan a holiday well in advance, and they don’t want to go in low season because the weather is less reliable. Even if they paid half the market rate this is more than they would usually pay for a holiday, so they don’t want to pay that either.

For context, my parents do occasionally use the villa in peak season. The villa ultimately came from my side of the family (family money/early inheritance), so I don’t really see that as the same thing. Without them, there wouldn’t be a villa in the first place.

Also, while I get on reasonably well with my in-laws, I wouldn’t choose to holiday with them for a week or two, so inviting them while we’re there isn’t really something I want to do either.

AIBU for saying that if they want to use it in peak season, they should either pay the market rate (or even half), or go in low season? Or should family simply be allowed to use it for free regardless of the income I’d be giving up?

It’s quite a lot more than a “treat” - that would be paying for a dinner. This could easily be costing OP upwards of £5,000!

But its owned by OP and a source of income, this would be similar to her DH giving a portion of his weekly salary to his parents who had previously given him a sizeable chunk of money and expecting him to do the same for his in laws., just to make it fair?

But it would cost you in utility bills, anything that gets accidentally broken, cleaning fees, time taken to coordinate it all. Not only would OP not get any money, she would actually have to pay more.

You're missing the point constantly. If she did her own dm's hair-do free at peak times then yes it's not unreasonable to think she'd do her dh's dm's too. Ditto a restaurant, free peak time meals for one set of parents? Free peak time meals for the other. Do you really not get it??

It's the equality that is the issue. So many on mn struggle with family dynamics and this thread is a perfect example of why.

Excellent ☺️

I’d say that’s in the eye of beholder tbh, if not in the framing. Good business sense, financial prudence, and an unwillingness to be taken advantage of are generally seen as positive character traits. An unfounded sense of entitlement, a trait being displayed by the in laws, is not.

I don't know, did her Mum buy her the salon or restaurant and maybe agreed to doing her hair or providing a meal at peak times as part of this? Or do you really not get it.

Also do people also not get the fact that sometimes family dynamics mean that people don't get on so well with their in-laws (and sometimes own family) so well.

I would let them as a gift.

So? They're family, don't you do this sort of thing for family? Especially in the OPs financial situation. Would be totally different if she was on the bread line and this would cause actual financial difficulties for her.

Her family gave her the house and the income in the first place though so not unreasonablefor them to reduce it but unreasonable for anyone else. I am sure if the in laws give her a house she will be happy to let them stay in it too.😁

Based only on them ‘being family’?

No.

I don't personally pay for my families bills. They pay for their own.

I still remember the times when it was more cost effective to let our static sit empty then rent it out.

But then when it’s empty you’ll get the ooo if it’s empty can I pop down this weekend I’ll give you £100 for it. My cleaner back then was £35 alone. Or worse the people who seemed to think offering a bottle of wine was a good deal for me 🤣 because well if it’s empty.

The peak times are the bit where you make the money to be able to have the holiday let and any profit. Outside of peak are your scraping by prices.

We did let some family and friends use it for good prices or free as a thank you sometimes but purely our choice.

In fact we even raffled a few breaks at school fundraisers for the pta.

It's not "paying their bills" though is it as much as you'd like to twist the situation

It’s possible the two sets of parents don’t warrant equal treatment. My husband is more likely to treat my mother than his own. Nothing in the ops posts suggest that her dh is upset that she won’t let them stay in August for free. The Op has offered a reduction in peak rate, so as others have suggested, if it is important to the dh to treat his parents to a vacation, he could match his wife’s contribution to allow the August trip to happen. but he doesn’t want to.

I think the OP is being quite tight.

If I was gifted a villa, I’d be more than happy to share my good fortune with both sets of parents, especially if both I and my DH were good earners, which the OP indicates they are. It would be a bit different if I was on the breadline.

But then, all income in my marriage is family income - including inheritance- so if I owned a villa, we would consider any income from it to be shared income. It all goes in one pot anyway. So we’d both effectively be taking the hit, whoever’s parents were using the villa. I’d like to think I would be generous enough to let either set of parents have the occasional week there - even in peak season! They’re all our family, after all

And still I would say yes. No matter how much everyone argues that they wouldn't I would. And have. All the reasons given are irrelevant to me.

Well no, it's not even paying for essential bills. It's for them to have a luxury holiday.

Totally agree. Maybe the OP has to have the mindset of 'the house isn't rented for the week' if she needs a reason to let them stay there.

If she did her mother’s hair free at peak times because her mother bought her the salon, then a non-entitled MIL wouldn’t expect a free haircut.

On the other hand haircuts don’t cost £5k+

Your post is an example of simple thinking.

The costs of running such a property are huge. Recouping them has a small window. The OP's in-laws want to eat into that, and they feel entitled to do so.

As per on MN, posters think they see what they view as wealth, and therefore it should be shared. I find it funny. It might be naivety, and what they imagine they would do, but it is easy to spend the money of others.

The upkeep of such rentals would not be offered up for a freebee, if they had to pay the costs and manage it all.

That's up to you. Having recently got divorced I am very glad I didn't put my inheritance into "one pot"

It’s only technically not paying bills because OP and her DH have set up their finances in a silly way.

OP out-earns her DH thus contributes more to the marital pot as well as providing free childcare.

Op explains in her first posting that the villa came from "family money" meaning her blood family I think that makes a difference. If OP were not married (and therefore had no in laws) the villa would still be available for "family" to use. The in laws are not family insiders but people who are tacked on as extras because of her subsequent relationship. Its quite cheeky of them to expect to stay for free. Therefore I feel that her offer for them to either

Stay for free at low season
Stay for half price at high season

Is a very reasonable compromise. Otherwise she will create a precedent and the asks will continue each year or maybe more often.

If it were MY villa I would charge relatives the going rate less maybe a small % but then I am a businesswoman and not a pushover.

No, I answered (you didn’t quote me, but my replies were similar) the OP with the information we were given by the OP.

Your reply is patronising. I’m not savvy to the exact costs of running a villa, no. But I’m not stupid nor naive to understand that they may be substantial.

However, information we were given by the OP suggested that the cost to them was, ‘an outfit and a few lunches’

If it were me and the above were true, I know what I would do.

That may be viewed to some as a ‘doormat’ I believe a PP was not so subtly suggesting, fine- if that’s what they think - so be it.

Why should OP give up a new outfit or socialising to effectively pay for a luxury holiday for her in laws. They can go at a cheaper time.