Sharing the cost of a holiday home with family

[Erin505]

Myself and two of my sisters are looking at hiring a holiday home to share for a week.

The one we like we have used before but it is really too big for this holiday. It has 7 bedrooms. They hoped some of their grown up kids could come and we have a school age child.

It's turned out that theirs can't come.

My sister's say the fairest way to split the cost is pay for the rooms we use and pay a third each for the four empty rooms. I said that is fair for the 7th room (split the cost) but surely we should all commit to pay for 2 rooms each.

The reason for this is none of us want or will use more than a third of the rooms but all will share the space. I'm not sure why I should pay more than a third of the cost given I'm not going to use more than a third of the space. If their kids were coming as hoped they would be paying for those rooms. If i or one of the others wanted more than 2 rooms we would pay for the third room.

Basically they've said "we don't want these rooms now so you've got to pay towards them. I'm like "hang on, I didn't want them, it's not my fault your kids aren't coming, we get a smaller house (if 4 bed I'd pay a half the cost or if a 5 bed I'll pay for two rooms and a third for the unused room as nobody can be wholly responsible for the odd rooms, but if 6 then we should again all pay a third and take responsibility for a third of the rooms each.

I'm not sure why I should pay towards what I see is their share of the house cost when I'm not using more than "my" two rooms?

It's caused a big argument as they say they always do it like that with friends but I pointed out their house shares never end up with as many or more spare/unused rooms than partners in the house share so this scenario never occurs.

It's when your ex and now new partner of a few years have both said the same about the one sister and you realise that it's pissed off/pissing off them too for the same reasons and something just snapped and made me think "I'm not being mugged off again"

I should have said also the other sister said there was a small chance their adult child and boyfriend might come so they would pay for the second room anyway. Then tried to engineer a peace deal where they paid more for the en suite ... The issue isn't with both sisters.

I do wonder if when the dust has settled you will all feel as if you have all, ironically, been equally unreasonable.

Hace you ever managed to have a successful gathering, maybe when the kids were younger? Do you feel that only happens when you do what they say?

I do wonder if there was a reason the adult children didn’t want to come.

But you’re taking up two rooms and they’re only taking up one. Won’t you have the same issue if you get a 4 bed place?

In my family we don’t include kids in the money mix so would split it three ways, but I can see it from your sisters point of view too. Seems silly for them to each be paying for 2.33 rooms.

Agree with you OP. You need two rooms and are happy to pay for two rooms. Why should you pay towards empty rooms when you would be happy to just get a smaller place? If having that specific holiday home is so important to them, they should cover the cost for the unallocated rooms.

I’m a youngest sibling too so appreciate the contextual dynamics at play.

OK so see if I get this straight. You need to occupy two rooms (one for you and one for your son), they need one room each. So you pay for 2 rooms and they pay for 1 room each. 3 empty rooms left that you each pay for. So you Pau 3 rooms and they each pay for 2 rooms. Does this sound fair @Erin505 ?

Yes it only works when I take whatever rooms I'm given and pay whatever I'm asked to pay and pay a per head cost of the food even though we bring in our own meals some days because we've not been consulted on the food, it's all meals decided by one or two people and if you don't like certain types of food it's not been considered because you weren't asked.

I get that you can't please everyone but when the wine choice you have paid towards is say red and white and you only ever drink rose, so you buy a bottle and one of their kids goes "oh rose - lovely" and pours a glass you obviously don't say anything. But it niggles when the bill is for your share of the food and you've paid out extra so you have what you want but the person doing the shopping order (guess who?!) obviously orders what they like so don't have an issue

Never made a fuss and just gone along with it and seethed to some degree. Decided I'm not being treated like that any more. Knew if I challenged at all I'd be the bad one, and lo and behold.....

Because if it was a 4 bed house I'd pay for two rooms and they would pay for one each. Yes, I'd pay half the total because I am occupying half the space. The issue here is none of us are occupying more than a third. So I'm saying we split three ways as whether my child comes and their's doesn't still doesn't affect the fair share of space and costs.

No. Because I'm paying over a third of the cost for using less than a third of the rooms. My point is there is that much empty space that we need to commit to a third of the space each. I don't see how you can say "I want this big house despite too many bedrooms but want to pay the least possible"

Surely whether I use "my" empty room or not shouldn't impact on the others? If their kids suddenly change plans and fill what I see as their empty rooms surely that shouldn't impact on me?

I agree with you OP, just because their kids are g coming doesn’t mean you should have to pay for the extra rooms. It was their idea to get a bigger house with more rooms and not having a commitment from their kids to go so they should be paying for the extra.

“No. Because I'm paying over a third of the cost for using less than a third of the rooms”

But you want them to pay a third of the cost despite only using one seventh of the rooms?

I honestly can see it from both sides.

I’m not sure if it’s because you’re the youngest one that’s why you’re seen as unreasonable. Just split it evenly by the amount of adults attending. No need to for drama.

I hear what you are saying OP but you may be losing people by your rather torturous analogies.

Simple story is a big house was booked or chosen as other siblings hoped their adult DCs might come along. As they have chosen not to these siblings now want cost of unused bedrooms to be split equally between everyone, which I agree isn’t fair as you were never going to benefit from having them.
The two options were either renting a smaller place for your actual needs or backing out, you have gone for the latter.

We do extended family trips. In the past we ended up paying more than our fair share and we were kind of ok with that because we earned well and DS as a child enjoyed spending time with his cousins. But then it got a bit ridiculous so for the last trip DH organised the rental and was very explicit about everyone paying equally including a share of the breakages deposit. That worked very well as everyone knew in advance what it cost.

Hey OP, I’m the youngest sister of three and do know what you mean about treatment. I’m pushing 40, yet am the sister expected to sleep in the fold down bed in the living room (which one sisters teenage daughters vehemently rejected), or to sleep on the floor when visiting aunties house at a family gathering. If I express my annoyance at the presumption that I deserve less privacy/comfort because im slightly younger, I’m told im being demanding. It’s really stupid and I’ve had enough, so I can see why you’re digging in your heels.

on the other hand, I do want to maintain a relationship with sibs, and know I won’t win this without breaking something in the relationship. It’s tricky.

Your sister is BU as she won’t move to a smaller place but won’t pay equally either- it’s one or the other IMO.

Only you can decide if it’s worth it in terms of a trip. There’s a reason that we don’t go away with the in laws any more for very similar reasons.

Thanks everyone for your replies. I needed to sanity check really as it just felt like maybe we had two heads and were completely unreasonable. The responses here obviously some do see her side (I do also as if the rooms divide up to 1.xx each it works to do it her way and that's how it's always been before) but I was surprised why "I'm not paying more than a third for less than a third of the space" didn't chime with her.

As always these things are a little more complex and as I've explained there's been a lot of water under the bridge too.

Thanks everyone, regardless of opinion, I didn't expect all comments to get what I am saying and get 100% support but it's clear most see that this is an unusual situation with so much unused space.