Shared Room and Snoring

[DottyG]

So far, it looks like the only one to have to do anything different, or incur any kind of additional expense is the person who is being kept awake all night by the snoring.

Suggestions have been made in several posts now.  I'm not sure of what you're asking.

Not only that, but quite a few of us have stated that the snorer can't do anything unless he/she is actually told that there's a problem to begin with.  If I'm rooming with a person who lets me know 3 days into a trip that they're moving out because of my snoring, I'm going to be pretty irritated.  And, no.  I'm not going to be all that anxious to assist them with any payment for a new room.  1)  They waited 3 days to say something?  and 2)  That's their answer?  Before trying any lesser solution (including ones that I could take myself), they've jumped to the most extreme?  Go ahead and move out, I guess.  But that seems like a pretty unreasonable step to take before anything else is tried - AND before you've even alerted me to the fact that there's a problem.
 
I guess my question is to turn that back around.  If it's not fair for the snorer to not bear any responsibility for alleviating the problem, how is it fair for the non-snorer to not do so?  How is it fair to hold in anger for 3 days and then decide that the only solution is one that costs even more money and uproots everything - before doing something that's a little calmer and could make everyone have a good night's sleep?
 
I think it's possible for both sides to compromise and have neither one bear the brunt of a solution.  That's the most fair thing in my opinion.  A person who snores may not be able to help that but can do what they can to minimize the noise.  A person who doesn't snore may not be able to sleep with the additional noise, but they may be able to do what they can to not be quite as bothered by it.  Neither side is "right" or "wrong" here - it can be a simple compromise.
 
 
 

[Shoo]

So far, it looks like the only one to have to do anything different, or incur any kind of additional expense is the person who is being kept awake all night by the snoring.

Suggestions have been made in several posts now.  I'm not sure of what you're asking.

Not only that, but quite a few of us have stated that the snorer can't do anything unless he/she is actually told that there's a problem to begin with.  If I'm rooming with a person who lets me know 3 days into a trip that they're moving out because of my snoring, I'm going to be pretty irritated.  And, no.  I'm not going to be all that anxious to assist them with any payment for a new room.  1)  They waited 3 days to say something?  and 2)  That's their answer?  Before trying any lesser solution (including ones that I could take myself), they've jumped to the most extreme?  Go ahead and move out, I guess.  But that seems like a pretty unreasonable step to take before anything else is tried - AND before you've even alerted me to the fact that there's a problem.
 
 

I swear I've read every post in this thread!  I just can't pull out of my brain the posts that place any of the responsibility on the snorer.  Several have stated the snorer can't help it.  What's the snorer supposed to do?  That sort of thing.  I'm just trying to save having to go back and re-read 6 pages of posts.

Is there any way the snorer can alleviate this situation?  Maybe there isn't.  Maybe the sleep deprived person just has to suck it up and get out after the first night instead of hoping things are different the 2nd night. 

I firmly believe, though, that if it comes to one of them having to leave and get their own room, they're each on their own as far as paying for their room goes.  I don't think either of them should have to pay (or help pay) for the other's room.  Sure, the snorer counted on having half the cost of his/her room covered by the roommate, but the roommate was counting on being actually able to SLEEP, and was denied that.  So both parties have to suffer equally, IMO.

[DottyG]

Shoo, I think you and I may be agreeing here.  We're just saying it differently.

I just can't pull out of my brain the posts that place any of the responsibility on the snorer.  Several have stated the snorer can't help it.  What's the snorer supposed to do?  That sort of thing.  I'm just trying to save having to go back and re-read 6 pages of posts.

And I'm recalling several posts that have put some responsibility on the snorer.
 
 

[CluelessBride]

I suspect the overall opinions may be colored in part by the specifics of the OP.

In the specific situation of the OP I put zero responsibility on the snorer because:

1. There is no indication that non-sleeper ever told the snorer it was a problem, so snorer wasn't given an opportunity to fix it.
2. Non-sleeper did not deal with the snoring in a reasonable and efficient manner - they stewed about it for several days and then booked a more expensive room.
3. They actually had the gall to ask snorer to help cover their expensive room which they booked without first consulting snorer.

So (IMO) in this particular situation snorer owes non-sleeper nothing. And non-sleeper is on the hook for paying for half of the original room as originally agreed.

I imagine the tone of many of the responses would be different if the situation had read:

Person A and Person B go on a trip.  On night 1, Person A snores so loud that Person B can't sleep. Person B even tries using ear plugs, but it doesn't help. The next morning, Person A mentions the snoring to Person B and admits that he wasn't able to sleep at all. Person A laughs and says "haha, yeah, I always snore like a freight train - ever since I was a kid! Nothing I can do about it, but I bet you'll get used to it by the end of the trip." Person B inquires at the front desk about another room, but discovers the only one available is an expensive spa suite.

Person B wants to ask if Person A would be willing to split the cost of both rooms and alternate who sleeps in the nice suite for the remainder of the trip.  Is that okay?


Because person A knew they snored. Knew it was loud disruptive and they couldn't do anything about it. And person A addressed it like a mature adult.


And of course there are a ton of different scenarios in between. Fundamentally, I think both parties have a responsibility to be mature, understanding and as accommodating as possible. Unfortunately in the situation in the OP the non-sleeper never gave the snorer an opportunity to do that prior to asking for money to stay in an upgraded suite. In the situation I presented, the snorer was unquestionably rude to not mention the snoring before agreeing to share the room.

[DottyG]

CluelessBride hit the nail squarely on the head.  I agree with her.

We're talking about 2 different scenarios here - the one in the OP and the generic one*.


 
 
 
*  And I will admit that my own responses may have combined the 2 at some points which may have muddied things a bit.
 
 

[PastryGoddess]

I suspect the overall opinions may be colored in part by the specifics of the OP.

In the specific situation of the OP I put zero responsibility on the snorer because:

1. There is no indication that non-sleeper ever told the snorer it was a problem, so snorer wasn't given an opportunity to fix it.
2. Non-sleeper did not deal with the snoring in a reasonable and efficient manner - they stewed about it for several days and then booked a more expensive room.
3. They actually had the gall to ask snorer to help cover their expensive room which they booked without first consulting snorer.

So (IMO) in this particular situation snorer owes non-sleeper nothing. And non-sleeper is on the hook for paying for half of the original room as originally agreed.

I imagine the tone of many of the responses would be different if the situation had read:

Person A and Person B go on a trip.  On night 1, Person A snores so loud that Person B can't sleep. Person B even tries using ear plugs, but it doesn't help. The next morning, Person A mentions the snoring to Person B and admits that he wasn't able to sleep at all. Person A laughs and says "haha, yeah, I always snore like a freight train - ever since I was a kid! Nothing I can do about it, but I bet you'll get used to it by the end of the trip." Person B inquires at the front desk about another room, but discovers the only one available is an expensive spa suite.

Person B wants to ask if Person A would be willing to split the cost of both rooms and alternate who sleeps in the nice suite for the remainder of the trip.  Is that okay?


Because person A knew they snored. Knew it was loud disruptive and they couldn't do anything about it. And person A addressed it like a mature adult.


And of course there are a ton of different scenarios in between. Fundamentally, I think both parties have a responsibility to be mature, understanding and as accommodating as possible. Unfortunately in the situation in the OP the non-sleeper never gave the snorer an opportunity to do that prior to asking for money to stay in an upgraded suite. In the situation I presented, the snorer was unquestionably rude to not mention the snoring before agreeing to share the room.

POD to this..

[Victim Of Fate]

Although interestingly, the OP also asks if, under the circumstances that A agrees to split the cost of both rooms, A is also entitled to request the nicer room. Now, I'm interested if anybody thinks that this would be out of line?

[DottyG]

Although interestingly, the OP also asks if, under the circumstances that A agrees to split the cost of both rooms, A is also entitled to request the nicer room. Now, I'm interested if anybody thinks that this would be out of line?

Can they take turns?  A gets it for 2 days and B gets it for 2 days?  That would be a fair solution to that problem.

[CrochetFanatic]

B was out of line, A was fine.

A might not have even known that he was a snorer.  It's not something that can be controlled.  I'm a snorer, and I've lost sleep because of other snorers, so I've experienced both sides.  Earplugs are one possible solution, separate rooms are another.

Where B went wrong was when he expected A to pay for his room, and if he backed out on their agreement to pay half for the original room.  If B absolutely had to sleep in a separate room, it was up to B alone to pay for it and to honor his agreement.

[Shoo]

  If B absolutely had to sleep in a separate room, it was up to B alone to pay for it and to honor his agreement.

I just don't understand this.  So B, who doesn't get to sleep because A snores so loudly, not only has to pay for his new room, he also has to pay for half of A's room?

A gets no penalty whatsoever?  And he basically caused the whole problem?  Not fair.  Not fair at all.  If I were B, I'd flat out refuse to pay for A's room.

[Sharnita]

I think the point is that B could sleep with the use of $5 dollar earplugs.  And if a medical condition precludes earplugs what make's B's medical condition more virtuous than the medical condition that causes the snoring? 

[Shoo]

I think the point is that B could sleep with the use of $5 dollar earplugs.  And if a medical condition precludes earplugs what make's B's medical condition more virtuous than the medical condition that causes the snoring? 

It's more virtuous (not sure I'd actually use that word) by the fact that it doesn't cause anyone else a problem.  His inability to wear earplugs only causes a problem for himself.  A's problem means B doesn't get any sleep. 

[Sharnita]

It causes somebody else a problem if it doubles their hotel costs. They have no options at thst point and yet they seem to be blamed while B would be blameless for turning down the earplug option, the white noise option, various other lest costly options.

[Shoo]

It causes somebody else a problem if it doubles their hotel costs. They have no options at thst point and yet they seem to be blamed while B would be blameless for turning down the earplug option, the white noise option, various other lest costly options.

But if it doesn't work for B, it doesn't work, regardless of how much less it would cost.  The fact is, A has a snoring problem.  B wouldn't have a problem at all if it weren't for A's snoring.  A is the problem here, not B.  I just don't think B shouldn't be out double the money because A snores. 

A caused the problem.  A should AT LEAST have to pay for his own room. At the very least.  Fair is fair.

[DottyG]

Shoo, I just want to make sure I'm understanding your example correctly. So, in what you've asked above, does this mean that B said something before Day 3? Did he try another option before going to the new room (whether that's earplugs, white noise, whatever for himself or something that might help A not snore as loudly)? Was a compromise attempted first or is B going to the new room solution first?

We have several versions of what's being asked here - from the actual OP's situation to some others that we've created since then that I want to get a complete picture of where you are with this.  (That's a genuine question to clarify for my own understanding - not a snarky question.)