Advice on Consumer Regulations - Refund/Return of Horse

W

Warieno

New User
Joined
14 February 2018
Messages
5
Visit site
I bought a horse from a dealer with no vetting. I know - not a brilliant thing to do. Now four months into ownership and although the horse isn't lame he just is not right. Thinking of having investigative work done, but not sure where I stand regarding return/refund if a problem is identified. Online advice says I can have a refund - less reasonable usage, but I'm wondering what sort of case I would have to present to stand any chance of success. A horse isn't the same as a faulty handbag! Not looking to make trouble for the dealer - daft thing is the way I read things it looks a bit unfair on the dealer. Interested to know.
 
No idea , but yes I feel sorry for the dealer as well .
You choose to buy the horse without a vetting then I feel you live with the consequences.
You would need considerable more evidence that ‘not right ‘ to take the dealer to court and getting that will cost money .
 
Goldenstar said:
No idea , but yes I feel sorry for the dealer as well .
You choose to buy the horse without a vetting then I feel you live with the consequences.
You would need considerable more evidence that ‘not right ‘ to take the dealer to court and getting that will cost money .
Click to expand...

This but you could take the sensible route and approach the dealer before doing investigations and see if they will offer a deal on grounds that the horse is not suitable, a good dealer who wants happy clients may decide to give a px a dodgy one will probably fail to respond to your calls, either way not having it vetted was a big mistake as you may find things that were possibly preexisting and not covered by insurance, having investigations done can open a can of worms so be prepared, not saying the horse should be allowed to suffer but being realistic on where you may end up.
 
You say four months into ownership and the “horse is not right” and there’s lameness. Obviously he wasn’t like that when you paid for him or you wouldn’t have done so. Horses are like people, any one of us can develop an illness at any time, despite having been perfectly healthy four months previously! I don’t see why the dealer is in the slightest responsible for this turn of events.
 
Im afraid if there is a problem it is of your own making, no vetting done, and four months down the line and something not right is a very vague premise for seeking a refund or return.
 
Thank you everyone - I have to agree with your comments. It was suggested to me that under the new Consumer Regulations I had 6 months to request a refund if I could find a cause, and it was the dealer's responsibility to prove that the "cause" was not pre-existing regardless of whether it was visible to him at the time I purchased the horse. Apparently even a clean vetting could still mean I had this recourse. This is not my way to do things and I feel I do have a responsibility. Makes you wonder why any dealer still sells horses if this the law?
 
Its always difficult as horses are not - as you say - the same as a handbag. If you discover a fault in an item within the first 6 months it is presumed to have been there on delivery unless the seller can prove otherwise. But because a horse is a living animal I would expect the proof to simply be that - any fault developed after sale not before. Equally I think you might be in some difficulty because the horse is just "not right" rather than possessing an obvious definable fault. Investigation might define the "fault" - and indeed might lend weight to it being pre-exisiting or a new creation. But you choose not to have it vetted. If it would have shown up on vetting then in equity the seller (assuming they advised you to have it vetted) is not responsible. If they advised against vetting that might be a different matter.

The other side to this is the practicality of actually returning the item (horse) if the dealer does not agree. As BP has suggested it is worth giving them a call and seeing if they will part X. That solves the problem. But if they say no or don't communicate this isn't an item you can return in the post or notify the seller to collect. It is a living breathing animal. It has to be cared for whilst you go through the possibly lengthy process of litigation - unless you opt to PTS. And much as you might have loved your faulty handbag - it isn't quite the same as the affection for an animal.
 
I bought a horse with kissing spines! I had him vetted and he seemed totally fine. I couldn’t ride him for about 3 weeks after I got him home as I was waiting for a saddle but straight away there were issues. Had Physio out, had saddle adjusted etc. Eventually get suggested KS which it was. It was about 7 months down the line before I knew, after buying him. Never occurred to me to try and get a refund but it was a private sale anyway so I guess that makes a difference.

Don’t know what to suggest I’m afraid but I hope it works out whatever you decide to do.
 
Warieno said:
Thank you everyone - I have to agree with your comments. It was suggested to me that under the new Consumer Regulations I had 6 months to request a refund if I could find a cause, and it was the dealer's responsibility to prove that the "cause" was not pre-existing regardless of whether it was visible to him at the time I purchased the horse. Apparently even a clean vetting could still mean I had this recourse. This is not my way to do things and I feel I do have a responsibility. Makes you wonder why any dealer still sells horses if this the law?
Click to expand...

Yes but you will have a find a cause a cause that you can prove exists and affects the use of the horse and you will have to prove you have not caused the problem
Not lame but not right won’t cut it in court .
 
When buying (or selling) a horse, it is important to be clear about who you are entering into a contract with. You may consider the important factors are the horse itself, or its price but the identity of the parties to the sale will mean legal rights may (or may not) be implied into the sale.
Certain statutory rights apply only to a contract between a consumer and a trader, such as the rights that goods sold must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose.
If you agree to sell a horse on behalf of somebody it is important to be clear about your role to buyer and seller, before the sale is agreed. For this reason, many agents make clear in their advertisements that they are marketing the horse on behalf of a client.

When a buyer is dissatisfied with a horse after purchase, the law provides them with various routes to pursue a seller.

The buyer may be able to rely on the Consumer rights Act 2015 which provides that the horse sold in the course of a business to a consumer must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. If the horse fails to meet any of these provisions, the buyer has rights including the right to reject the horse within 30 days of receiving it.
The buyer may also rely on representations made by the seller before the purchase, although it is more difficult to do so. This could be an oral statement made when the horse was being viewed or a statement in an advert.
If those statements turn out to be untrue, the buyer can allege that the seller has made a misrepresentation and that the buyer is entitled to damages or to return the horse and seek a refund.

An aggrieved buyer must set out their case in writing, and allow the seller time to respond (and to make any proposals to resolve the dispute) before issuing court proceedings, if no resolution can be reached, the buyer would have to issue a claim form at court to pursue the matter.
The parties will go through a process dictated by the court, which is likely to include exchanging documents and witness statements. At a trial the judge will consider the documents and listen to witnesses. If the parties are represented the judge will also hear from their solicitor or barrister.
The crucial issue in a dispute such as this is almost invariably what was said or agreed before the sale. Buyers will face difficulties in persuading a judge the seller told them something if there is no record. Witnesses memories become jaded so judges are far more interested in documentary evidence. Examples are E-mails, text messages and social media messages. If an issue is important to you it is best to have it recorded in a contract of sale, but if that is not practical, make sure you have documentary record of it.
 
Thank you for such a comprehensive reply. I'm interested to know whether if investigations find something but there is no veterinary or documentary evidence to show that this could be classed as pre-existing or even known about how can a purchaser like myself reasonably expect a seller to have known and therefore for me to rely on the Sale of Goods Act and ask for a refund or exchange. I'm sure that x-rays or whatever will find something - just as it would in most horses, but whether it would be classed as conclusive proof that the horse is not fit for purpose I guess would be debatable. Especially in my case - as horse isn't actually lame. I suspect it may be early arthritis changes. No animal or human is perfect, I don't think I would pass the vet either!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top