Help me understand....

FBaby

So if she'd said she did last year, so it was your turn to do this year, would you have gone and paid full for it? If I understand well, she did it last year, so it should have been your turn this year and would have paid full, so surely you are gaining from it?

It really all comes down to whether she is pleased to go or not or only doing so so that her son and yours get to go.

balletshoes

victory wrote: »

I honestly hand on heart have no clue, I should have said ' oh yes that's lovely you book your ticket when you get in' or words to that effect, or why involve me my job was to get the kids ones online the second they came out, I did my job, the kids are very happy, that's all that counts,
just curious as to if anyone else would ask the accompanying adult to half?

possibly - if the scenario was that the kids could only go if accompanied by an adult, and the paying adult wouldn't have thought of going if it wasn't to accompany the kids (ie if it wouldn't be their choice of activity normally).

If I was the only adult of the 2 sets of parents who could/was willing to accompany the kids because none of the parents particularly wanted to go/weren't forthcoming in volunteering to go, I might ask the other kid's parents to pay half my ticket.

peachyprice

victory wrote: »

just curious as to if anyone else would ask the accompanying adult to half?

You mean the non-accompanying adult? She's asking you to pay half her ticket yes? You're not going, she is, yes?

If so, she's a bloody cheeky mare, why have you got to pay half of something you're not seeing?

She's had a year to sort out her finances, it's not a spur of the moment thing, lack of money is no excuse.

zzzLazyDaisy

I think I would just say

'oh, no worries, lets both go with the kids, it'll be fun' and then I'd go on the ticket I've purchased and leave her to make her own mind up.

TBH I can't see what difference the fact that under 16's must be accompanied will have made since she was going to take them anyway? Unless she was going to accompany them on the train and just drop them off/pick them up?

*max*

victory wrote: »

I am fully aware I don't understand things and can get the wrong end of the stick but I honestly don't know the answer so asking can you see it?

My DS and his friend going for a day out,booked months ahead , tickets came out yesterday, since last year sons friend said she would accompany them ( short train ride I will pay my DS train fare) bought two tickets yesterday, fine. We each pay for our child's ticket, perfect.

Do you mean "son's friend's mum" here?And if so, did she only say she was going on the train with them, but not actually going in to the attraction itself?

Today friends mum says under 16 not allowed in without adult , so for me to buy a ticket as I had access to the internet, did that, she will still go but I have to pay half ?

So I paid DS entrance, giving him money to buy lunch/ pay train fare, why do I have to pay half for accompanying adult entrance price, cost?
I refer to my previous question: if she had said she would go on the train, but not actually go in with them to the attraction - then realised now that they can't go in without an adult, so she HAS to go in with them - then I think it's fair that you pay half her entrance fee. She's only going in because otherwise the boys can't go.

Just don't get it, often taken kids out to cinema, days out, theme parks, arcades, etc, kids bring money or parent pays 1 time, I pay the other, or the tickets have been pre- payed and they arrive with an e- ticket, etc never asked accompanying adult for half my entrance fee?

Have you?

Your post wasn't very clear, can you clarify?

victory

FBaby wrote: »

So if she'd said she did last year, so it was your turn to do this year, would you have gone and paid full for it? If I understand well, she did it last year, so it should have been your turn this year and would have paid full, so surely you are gaining from it?

It really all comes down to whether she is pleased to go or not or only doing so so that her son and yours get to go.

It's the first time , I would have paid for myself, wouldn't have occurred to me to ask for anything else than the child's money and his train fare.

victory

peachyprice wrote: »

You mean the non-accompanying adult? She's asking you to pay half her ticket yes? You're not going, she is, yes?

If so, she's a bloody cheeky mare, why have you got to pay half of something you're not seeing?

She's had a year to sort out her finances, it's not a spur of the moment thing, lack of money is no excuse.

Yes and yes. Not going, not seeing.

FBaby

If so, she's a bloody cheeky mare, why have you got to pay half of something you're not seeing?

Maybe because the good deal of the two is to be home? I can think of activities I would rather pay someone fully to go with my kids than me going!

victory

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I think I would just say

'oh, no worries, lets both go with the kids, it'll be fun' and then I'd go on the ticket I've purchased and leave her to make her own mind up.

TBH I can't see what difference the fact that under 16's must be accompanied will have made since she was going to take them anyway? Unless she was going to accompany them on the train and just drop them off/pick them up?

All this was known last year

victory

*max* wrote: »

Your post wasn't very clear, can you clarify?

Sorry,all info was very clear to everyone last year, she offered to go, I py train and ticket, she pays train and ticket, then tickets came out yesterday and she has decided her accompanying adult entrance ticket that she knew about would be halved?.