Advice - should I have to pay?

amy_b

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 October 2010
Messages
807
Visit site
I sent my horse on full working livery, he is nappy and rears and wanted the professional to push some buttons and then I go back to him for lessons on how to deal with it. I said to him - I don't expect you to hand him back to me cured, I just want advice on how to deal with him.
Without going into too much irrelevant detail three days after he arrived the pro rang me with an update to say they had lunged him and 'the vet was here so we had a look in his mouth and have taken two wolf teeth out'
Ten days in and he hadn't been ridden yet.
Now I've just spoken to the vets who have charged me a full call out fee as nothing else was booked in at the yard that day...(!)
As annoyed as I am about it I don't mind paying for the teeth taking out but the £50 call out really is the straw that broke the camels back! Am I wrong? I feel like the pro should have called me at some point prior and made sure it was ok with me..?! Even more so now I know it was booked in specifically and furthermore I would really have preferred to have either my own vet or dentist do the work...
 

ihatework

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 September 2004
Messages
21,346
Visit site
I'd be as peed off as you, if only down to the communication, and would be rapidly evaluating if this was the type of set up I wanted to leave my horse in. But then I am a self confessed control freak
 

j1ffy

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 January 2009
Messages
4,213
Location
Oxon
Visit site
I'd be absolutely fuming! Having said that I did have a vet try to charge me full call-out when it was shared with one of the YO's horses (a few years back now, at a different yard). I called the office and they amended it to half-call-out fee. It was only later that I discovered that the YO had 'free' vet call-out and check-ups, which I realised was actually 'piggy-backing on liveries paying the call-out fee'. Could be a similar situation..?

Regardless I'd be very annoyed that a YM, be it a pro rider or not, would request a non-urgent procedure without informing you then keep the horse on livery. I'd have thought the professional thing to do would be to say 'I've lunged your horse and I think there is a problem in his / her mouth. I recommend you get his / her teeth sorted then send back if you still have a problem'. I assume you're paying higher livery at this yard?
 

Tiddlypom

Carries on creakily
Joined
17 July 2013
Messages
22,235
Location
In between the Midlands and the North
Visit site
What contract do you have with the pro? Please tell me you do have one.
This.

Your horse is in for remedial ridden work, and it is sensible that the pro checks initially that he is not in pain. A check of teeth and back is a good starting point before he/she risks their neck with him. But absolutely you should have agreed to this first.

Why has he not been ridden 10 days in? Are they long lining him or something, which could be a good move with a remedial horse?
 

amy_b

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 October 2010
Messages
807
Visit site
No contract, agree that in hindsight is silly.
I know it is easy for me to say but it isn't pain related. It isn't consistent enough, it is a reaction to a situation that is the problem. Ie. Sees something he doesn't like out hacking and spins and rears. He can hack a whole route, school into a contact etc. and be fine. But get the point. Feel a bit better knowing I'm not just misinformed on how these things work.
 

Goldenstar

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 March 2011
Messages
46,022
Visit site
No contract, agree that in hindsight is silly.
I know it is easy for me to say but it isn't pain related. It isn't consistent enough, it is a reaction to a situation that is the problem. Ie. Sees something he doesn't like out hacking and spins and rears. He can hack a whole route, school into a contact etc. and be fine. But get the point. Feel a bit better knowing I'm not just misinformed on how these things work.

It you really believe that inconsistent bad behaviour is not sometimes in fact often pain related you have bigger problems than the vets bill.
TBH I would be really embarrassed if someone discovered my horse had wolf teeth after I had been in charge of it.
The pro ought to have rung you and said what was happening .
 

amy_b

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 October 2010
Messages
807
Visit site
It you really believe that inconsistent bad behaviour is not sometimes in fact often pain related you have bigger problems than the vets bill.
TBH I would be really embarrassed if someone discovered my horse had wolf teeth after I had been in charge of it.
The pro ought to have rung you and said what was happening .

I think you are going off piste a little here and twisting my words. I believe that in *this case* it is not pain related. His most recent 'episode' he had been behaving very well and I took him to a little low key dressage competition and he napped, reared and fell over. I can't believe he would only be in pain on that occasion but not the ten days leading up to it schooling, hacking and jumping.

However I will agree about the teeth and hold my hands up to that wholeheartedly. It is not excuse but had been trying to get my dentist out for months, I hadn't prioritised it highly enough and that is a lesson learnt..
 

Fiona

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 July 2001
Messages
10,150
Location
N. Ireland
Visit site
This.

Your horse is in for remedial ridden work, and it is sensible that the pro checks initially that he is not in pain. A check of teeth and back is a good starting point before he/she risks their neck with him. But absolutely you should have agreed to this first.

However subsequent to that, if the vet has advised the pro that the horse needs a period of time off (more than a fortnight) to let his mouth heal, then the pro should have informed you so you could offer to have horse back to recuperate (assuming here that your reschooling fees are a lot more expensive than your standard livery)

Fiona
 

ycbm

Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
56,552
Visit site
My vet a while ago recommended leaving wolf teeth unless it is known that they are causing a problem.

The work was done without your permission. I would not pay.
 
Last edited:

FfionWinnie

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 July 2012
Messages
17,021
Location
Scotland
Visit site
No this isn't right. They should have phoned you to collect the horse, have the dental work done and return it for schooling when it was fit to work.
 

{97702}

...
Joined
9 July 2012
Messages
14,849
Visit site
I would say that you should pay up and accept it - you asked the pro to sort out your problem horse, if the pro thinks that the wolf teeth are causing a problem then they will act accordingly. Suck it up and put it down to experience, if you had investigated the potential problems before sending the horse to the pro you would quite probably have found the same and had the wolf teeth removed?

Personally I would have ensured that there was a contract in place to ensure that the pro had contacted me BEFORE having the procedure done...
 

DabDab

Ah mud, splendid
Joined
6 May 2013
Messages
12,572
Visit site
Lévrier;13568449 said:
I would say that you should pay up and accept it - you asked the pro to sort out your problem horse, if the pro thinks that the wolf teeth are causing a problem then they will act accordingly. Suck it up and put it down to experience, if you had investigated the potential problems before sending the horse to the pro you would quite probably have found the same and had the wolf teeth removed?

Personally I would have ensured that there was a contract in place to ensure that the pro had contacted me BEFORE having the procedure done...

But what if there is something in the horse's medical history that means there are restrictions on treatment? Absolutely outrageous behaviour, particularly by the attending vet
 

alainax

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 April 2010
Messages
4,503
Location
Lanarkshire
Visit site
I had a similar situation recently, but handled perfectly by the yard. Pony away for breaking. His hoof cracked. They advised me to get my farrier. I couldn't get mine quick enough so I asked them to get theirs for me. It took 3 days and he wasn't worked in that time, farrier trimmed foot and said it was fine to work him. They were back on that day. I got an invoice for £25.

If he had caused himself some damage was to be off for more than a week I'd have brought him home to heal, and took him back when ready to work again.

Has he been doing any work in the mean time? Ground manners, long lining, lunging etc?
 

be positive

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 July 2011
Messages
19,396
Visit site
Lévrier;13568449 said:
I would say that you should pay up and accept it - you asked the pro to sort out your problem horse, if the pro thinks that the wolf teeth are causing a problem then they will act accordingly. Suck it up and put it down to experience, if you had investigated the potential problems before sending the horse to the pro you would quite probably have found the same and had the wolf teeth removed?

Personally I would have ensured that there was a contract in place to ensure that the pro had contacted me BEFORE having the procedure done...

I take horses in for schooling and would never get a vet, or anyone else, in to treat a horse without running it past the owner first, obviously I can in an emergency, this is not a simple lack of communication it is totally overstepping the mark, with the many forms of communicating available nowadays there is no excuse for failing to inform the owner before it happened contract or no contract this is an invasive procedure and should have been run past the owner.

Both pro and the vet are both at fault really but it probably needed doing so must be paid but if in my yard you would not be expected to pay for the full livery costs while the horse is unable to be worked, if they try and charge full rates that needs to be questioned as they gave you no option to take him home or get it done by your own vets.
 

ycbm

Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
56,552
Visit site
But what if there is something in the horse's medical history that means there are restrictions on treatment? Absolutely outrageous behaviour, particularly by the attending vet

This.

Is the pro one of those people who just routinely thinks that wolf teeth must come out? Because most of them are tiny, on the top jaw only, never come near the bit, and cause no issues at all. Had he even ridden and assessed the horse before deciding that they needed to come out?

I've said it already but I wouldn't pay the vet bill and probably only some livery of the trainers bill too, the horse has not been trained.
 

Theocat

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 November 2010
Messages
2,753
Visit site
I agree with the others - unacceptable to get the vet out for a non-urgent issue without discussing it with you first.

I'd pay the treatment part of the bill but not the call out, and the standard full livery fee rather than the schooling livery fee to date, them I'd remove the horse pronto and find a new pro.
 

{97702}

...
Joined
9 July 2012
Messages
14,849
Visit site
But what if there is something in the horse's medical history that means there are restrictions on treatment? Absolutely outrageous behaviour, particularly by the attending vet

Then the owner should have stipulated the details of any veterinary treatment in a contract - the pro should not be expected to have a crystal ball?
 

{97702}

...
Joined
9 July 2012
Messages
14,849
Visit site
I take horses in for schooling and would never get a vet, or anyone else, in to treat a horse without running it past the owner first, obviously I can in an emergency, this is not a simple lack of communication it is totally overstepping the mark, with the many forms of communicating available nowadays there is no excuse for failing to inform the owner before it happened contract or no contract this is an invasive procedure and should have been run past the owner.

Both pro and the vet are both at fault really but it probably needed doing so must be paid but if in my yard you would not be expected to pay for the full livery costs while the horse is unable to be worked, if they try and charge full rates that needs to be questioned as they gave you no option to take him home or get it done by your own vets.

As per my answer to another post -
Is the pro supposed be psychic? And no, I definitely have no connection with the pro concerned, I have no idea who it is :)
 

ihatework

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 September 2004
Messages
21,346
Visit site
Lévrier;13568545 said:
Then the owner should have stipulated the details of any veterinary treatment in a contract - the pro should not be expected to have a crystal ball?

Woah. Contract or no contract, it was not for the pro to authorise non emergency veterinary treatment, end of.
 

ycbm

Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
56,552
Visit site
Lévrier;13568556 said:
I was replying to the suggestion that there may be a pre-existing condition that would preclude treatment. That was all.

For example, a friend had a sports horse which was exceptionally reactive to anaesthetic. A full dose could have killed her. What if this horse had a problem like that? The owner should have been consulted.
 
Last edited:

ihatework

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 September 2004
Messages
21,346
Visit site
Lévrier;13568556 said:
I was replying to the suggestion that there may be a pre-existing condition that would preclude treatment. That was all.
You said they weren't expected to have a crystal ball. PRECISELY why they should be asking the bill payer. I'm sorry there is no defense/excuse
 

{97702}

...
Joined
9 July 2012
Messages
14,849
Visit site
You said they weren't expected to have a crystal ball. PRECISELY why they should be asking the bill payer. I'm sorry there is no defense/excuse

as I said previously, I would have ensured that there was a contract in place to avoid this sort of situation - why wouldn't you? Yes I agree the pro SHOULD have made contact first, in today's world I would have also made absolutely sure they knew they HAD to - assumption is the mother of all **** ups as the Forces saying goes... personally my horse is far too important to me to make assumptions

ETA - I find it quite odd that the OP seems quite happy for the wolf teeth to be taken out (query - was this a potential known problem? I have no idea, but MAYBE even one he/she had mentioned to the pro???) but appears to be kicking up about a call out fee??
 
Last edited:

Flyermc

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2013
Messages
995
Visit site
contract or no contract, surely there's common sense? a whole host of things could have gone wrong.

im assuming by 'pro' this is something that this person does regularly and really should know better!
 

ihatework

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 September 2004
Messages
21,346
Visit site
Lévrier;13568596 said:
as I said previously, I would have ensured that there was a contract in place to avoid this sort of situation - why wouldn't you? Yes I agree the pro SHOULD have made contact first, in today's world I would have also made absolutely sure they knew they HAD to - assumption is the mother of all **** ups as the Forces saying goes... personally my horse is far too important to me to make assumptions

Interesting.
No pro contract I have seen has said anything along the lines of 'Pro will obtain explicit approval from owner for non emergency veterinary treatment', I have taken it for granted that anyone with my horse is professional enough to realise what an appropriate way to behave is.

Although I do know of a reasonably high profile event rider who lost half his yard of horses after continually messing owners around, unauthorised vet intervention being one of them.
 

Equi

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 October 2010
Messages
13,246
Visit site
Id be absolutely fuming, only because of the lack of communication. What else would he not say? "oh horse broke its leg and i had it shot last week but dont worry about it. thatll be 900 thanks"

Vet should not have worked on an animal without the owners permission, as i assume it was sedated?! What if it had allergies and died as a result and the owner knew and pro did not think to ask. gah!
 

{97702}

...
Joined
9 July 2012
Messages
14,849
Visit site
Interesting.
No pro contract I have seen has said anything along the lines of 'Pro will obtain explicit approval from owner for non emergency veterinary treatment', I have taken it for granted that anyone with my horse is professional enough to realise what an appropriate way to behave is.

Although I do know of a reasonably high profile event rider who lost half his yard of horses after continually messing owners around, unauthorised vet intervention being one of them.

I work in HR - that is sufficient to make me realise that the norms of behaviour that I (and, hopefully, most of the population) go by are certainly not always recognised. Better to be safe and all that
 

ihatework

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 September 2004
Messages
21,346
Visit site
Lévrier;13568620 said:
I work in HR - that is sufficient to make me realise that the norms of behaviour that I (and, hopefully, most of the population) go by are certainly not always recognised. Better to be safe and all that

While we are at it let's add:
Pro will not abuse horse
Pro will not let unauthorised people ride horse
Pro will not put blue rug with pink flowers on horse

Where do you draw the line? I'm sorry but the OP example is plain common sense
 
Top