And now (sorry, same livery)

OP I appreciate that you probably struggle with confrontation (many of us do), but in the long run most people prefer upfront honesty rather than pussyfooting around.

You need to speak to the mother and say that you are sorry but you are not happy with the pony's management and that you believe either she has misinterpreted her vets advice or that the pony has deteriorated since the vet last saw it as the pony is obviously not just stiff it is chronically lame. Suggest she gets the vet back out and insist that you are both there to hear the vets updated advice on care of the pony. Explain that as YO that you legally have a duty to ensure that the welfare of any horse on your yard is maintained. If she refuses then inform her that unfortunately she leaves you no choice but to report the horse to the relevant authorities.
 
LadySam said:
She hasn't officially reported them. I think OP has simply gone to BHS Welfare for advice on how to handle the situation, as she was advised to do earlier in this thread. Perfectly sensible and appropriate.

If OP does end up videoing the girl riding the horse, there's no reason it has to be covert. According to them, the vet said it's ok, so there would be nothing to hide or get upset about if they were caught riding, would there? Their reaction would speak volumes.

(I get the impression that the mother finds it easier to put an uncomplaining horse in pain rather than deal with her daughter when told she can't ride. Would I be right, OP?)

There also seems to be little point in OP speaking directly to the owners. It would appear that OP carries no weight with them as an authority figure or advisor, so has to influence things by having the right people talk to them. It's not ideal, but sometimes when you know you're in the right and something must be done, that's how it goes.

The next couple of weeks will be revealing indeed, OP.
Click to expand...

I never actually said that op had reported them did I? I merely said that I think it would have been better to speak to the owner first before calling welfare - but welfare said to video and then call them so it kinda has been reported?

if somebody started videoing me riding then I would be asking them why?! If op says its so she can show welfare then thats not going to go down very well is it!

Far better to be out in the open with the owner before involving 3rd parties, if they dont take any notice then by all means get welfare involved but I do feel its right to at least try to talk it through with the owner first. I suspect you may be right that the daughter may kick off at the mum if she cant ride so mum lets her do it -there could be so much more going on behind the scenes of this family
 
indie1282 said:
I never actually said that op had reported them did I? I merely said that I think it would have been better to speak to the owner first before calling welfare
Click to expand...

No, but the logical conclusion I drew from your post was that you thought that, apologies for misinterpreting. OP finds this livery difficult to talk to and has been canvassing advice on how to deal. There's nothing wrong with also contacting welfare - experts in dealing with these cases - as well as on here to figure out the way forward. OP has tried to sound the livery out, and only got mistruths (whether deliberate or not) for her trouble. Time to ask the experts, as it seems to be a tricky case.

indie1282 said:
- but welfare said to video and then call them so it kinda has been reported?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Welfare has simply asked for evidence before they will proceed and advised on what to do. Completely appropriate.

indie1282 said:
if somebody started videoing me riding then I would be asking them why?! If op says its so she can show welfare then thats not going to go down very well is it!... Far better to be out in the open with the owner before involving 3rd parties, if they dont take any notice then by all means get welfare involved but I do feel its right to at least try to talk it through with the owner first.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, as would I. Videoing can kill two birds with one stone. OP can use the video in the first instance to show these people what the horse is doing that shows it's in pain and isn't being correctly managed. If that's ignored, take it to welfare. We're actually in agreement here!

indie1282 said:
I suspect you may be right that the daughter may kick off at the mum if she cant ride so mum lets her do it -there could be so much more going on behind the scenes of this family.
Click to expand...
Indeed. All the more reason to get advice from the welfare experts, have facts and evidence ready so that they can have the difficult conversations with the owners and OP doesn't have to get into any fraught, emotion laden discussions with the livery. It IS an emotional issue, but the horse's welfare is the most important thing, and it really seems only hard facts from an expert, impartial 3rd party will resolve this in the horse's favour.
 
If you read the original post you will note that I have already queried them riding this pony more than once, and been stonewalled with it was on the vets advice.
And yes, daughter is an adult with undiagnosed mental problems (most likely aspergers) and kicks off when she can't get her own way, so mother indulges her. Hence the lack of diagnosis. And mother can't cope with death in any form, so the question of euthanasia is going to be a long hard decision on all counts. I just hope the vet will be able to persuade them when the time comes.
Oh, and a YOs duty of care extends to the safety and suitability of facilities, lack of hazards etc, not to the ongoing management of the equines on their premises.
No-one pays enough for a YO to have to cope with this sort of dysfunctional family, when they have moved on I will be offering the grazing for sheep or cattle. My yard is my relaxation time with my own horses, I don't need that kind of stress (the family seem to be no longer speaking to me because I dared question them).
 
I'm afraid if you can't cope with death then you should never have a pet of any description. When I told my parents I was buying my horse (I was 32 at the time) the first thing my mother said was "you do know that one day you will have to make the decision to have her put down, and are you prepared to do that?"
 
JillA said:
If you read the original post you will note that I have already queried them riding this pony more than once, and been stonewalled with it was on the vets advice.
And yes, daughter is an adult with undiagnosed mental problems (most likely aspergers) and kicks off when she can't get her own way, so mother indulges her. Hence the lack of diagnosis. And mother can't cope with death in any form, so the question of euthanasia is going to be a long hard decision on all counts. I just hope the vet will be able to persuade them when the time comes.
Oh, and a YOs duty of care extends to the safety and suitability of facilities, lack of hazards etc, not to the ongoing management of the equines on their premises.
No-one pays enough for a YO to have to cope with this sort of dysfunctional family, when they have moved on I will be offering the grazing for sheep or cattle. My yard is my relaxation time with my own horses, I don't need that kind of stress (the family seem to be no longer speaking to me because I dared question them).
Click to expand...

Life is just too short to deal with this sort of crap for the income you get for it .
Just move them along and get a life
 
You do have a duty of care towards the animals on your property too.
I can't believe that having had confirmation from the vet you are going to say no more about it :eek3: :( and let that carry on on your yard.
And Asperger's is nothing to do with kicking off when you don't get your own way.

If you don't want to cope with their dysfunctionality just ask them to leave.
 
Jill A it doesn't sound like you are really set up or cut out for dealing with liveries and the complications they bring. Might just be better to ask them to leave and stick with sheep grazing like you are suggesting
 
ester said:
You do have a duty of care towards the animals on your property too.
Click to expand...
Only insofar as they are affected by the state of your premises. The rest is a myth, or perhaps you would like to quote your source - I'm happy to be corrected but not by an urban myth, by proper legal sources.
And I am going to say no more about it AS LONG AS THEY ABIDE BY THE VET'S FURTHER ADVICE. Get off your high horse
 
JillA said:
Only insofar as they are affected by the state of your premises. The rest is a myth, or perhaps you would like to quote your source - I'm happy to be corrected but not by an urban myth, by proper legal sources.
And I am going to say no more about it AS LONG AS THEY ABIDE BY THE VET'S FURTHER ADVICE. Get off your high horse
Click to expand...
I had a neglectful livery, I took advice from the BHS and RSPCA and I was told I was responsible. So have you a quote from case law? TBH its easier to get rid of them than have the stress.
 
JillA are these the same people who were bringing their horses in when it rained re your other thread?
 
honetpot said:
I had a neglectful livery, I took advice from the BHS and RSPCA and I was told I was responsible. So have you a quote from case law? TBH its easier to get rid of them than have the stress.
Click to expand...

This. Which is why when owners do a flit the YO ends up caring for a horse that isn't theirs and they don't want.
At the very least it is pretty unethical to allow someone to ride a lame horse against vets instructions on your land and to say it isn't your problem is a bit of a cop out and somewhat neglectful IMO. Even if I weren't YO and it was a friend/acquaintance I would be saying something and I had confrontation too but for the sake of a horse I'd do it. As YO I would use that as leverage, my land, what I say goes (which iirc was your reasoning for you not wanting them to use their stables in the summer, so why the change of heart when there is an actual welfare issue occurring?

Obviously you don't have to speak to them about itif they aren't riding it again, though I really don't see the issue with saying look, I know the vet says you aren't to ride it, so you will not be riding it on my land. Particularly as if the vet is speaking to them they are potentially going to say look I've heard you are riding the horse - how many people are they likely to have heard that from?

Your post also suggested that if they do ride you aren't going to speak to them you are just going to pass the issue on to the BHS, rather than taking any responsibility for it occurring on your land, if you don't want that responsibility don't take liveries or do a bit more vetting so you don't end up with a pair like these two which are obviously causing you other issues as well.
 
Section 4 of the animal welfare act reads
nnecessary suffering

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,

(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,

(c)the animal is a protected animal, and

(d)the suffering is unnecessary.



(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he is responsible for an animal,

(b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,

(c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and

(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

As an act it is not very well worded, case law doesn't really exist because most of these cases don't get beyond magistrates (which don't produce case law).

I still think it is by the by as even if the legal situation isn't 100% clear it is hard to see there isn't a moral one. It doesn't really have anything to do with being a YO, just knowing the situation and allowing it to happen is not allowed (point 2, b and c)
 
Last edited:
Oh for heavens sake!
OP has spoken to the owners on numerous occasions and been ignored.
OP has then spoken to the owners vet who has confirmed they have not advised the horse to be ridden.
OP has now spoken to BHS and been told that if this continues then to get back in touch and a welfare officer will be sent out.

How is she not fulfilling her duty of care?
How is she going behind the owner's back?
Moving the horse on is just passing the buck, this way the horse should actually get the care it deserves, whether it stays with the owners, gets taken on by a rescue, or is PTS

OP well done, I hope this all works out for you and the horse.
 
Why is OP on here then worrying about it if she has the situation under control?
When she was but a week ago complaining about the same owners bringing their horse's in to their stables.
 
ester said:
Why is OP on here then worrying about it if she has the situation under control?
When she was but a week ago complaining about the same owners bringing their horse's in to their stables.
Click to expand...

I didn't read her posts as saying she had the situation under control, Ester. My reading was that she's spoken to them on more than one occasion, they won't listen, and she's at her wits' end with the hassle of it all, not just wanting to give them notice and move the pony off her land so it can suffer elsewhere. I can sympathise with her, sounds like a rubbish situation she's trying to deal with the best she can.
 
ester said:
Section 4 of the animal welfare act reads
nnecessary suffering

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,

(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,

(c)the animal is a protected animal, and

(d)the suffering is unnecessary.



(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he is responsible for an animal,

(b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,

(c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and

(d)the suffering is unnecessary.

As an act it is not very well worded, case law doesn't really exist because most of these cases don't get beyond magistrates (which don't produce case law).

I still think it is by the by as even if the legal situation isn't 100% clear it is hard to see there isn't a moral one. It doesn't really have anything to do with being a YO, just knowing the situation and allowing it to happen is not allowed (point 2, b and c)
Click to expand...

You ignored the definitions:-

"Responsibility for animals
(1)In this Act, references to a person responsible for an animal are to a person responsible for an animal whether on a permanent or temporary basis.

(2)In this Act, references to being responsible for an animal include being in charge of it.

(3)For the purposes of this Act, a person who owns an animal shall always be regarded as being a person who is responsible for it.

(4)For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be treated as responsible for any animal for which a person under the age of 16 years of whom he has actual care and control is responsible."

The person referred to is the owner or person who has control of the animal such as loanee, someone transporting an animal, or someone being paid to take care of the animal as opposed to providing stabling and grazing. Changes the meaning completely and needs to be read in context. A YO does not have responsibility unless some part of the payment is to take care of the animal.
If you ask a lawyer who is up to date I'm sure they will supply details of case law confirming that. Of course, if you know of case law where the definition does include the owner of the land on which the animal is kept, feel free to share it..................

40 - 30
.
 
Last edited:
No I didn't read it like that either, that was what Mince Pie was making out.
And I just don't understand how a week ago she declared my yard my rules when it came to owners putting horses in stables included in their livery, but when it involves a lame horse being ridden that no longer applies.

JillA said:
Actually yes I can. My yard, my rules - I am considering a no stabling between May and October for anything other than emergencies rule.
Click to expand...



I just can't see this situation occurring on any of the yards I know, even the really rough ones where choice of client is non existent the YO would be saying no, not on my premises. - that doesn't mean that the horse would necessarily be moved, I can see that might not benefit though it might help the OP.

And I didn't ignore the definitions .......... I said it was badly worded the definitions are the main bit which is badly worded! And why I highlighted the bits (B+C) I did because you don't need to fall under that definition for the basis of allowing something to occur that you know will cause welfare concerns. Unless you don't think you would be classed as 'another person'?? But as I also said I'd think it was a moral obligation as much as a legal one. But then anyone who thinks that Asperger's generates tantrums if people don't get their own way is misguided at best anyway.

If you have no issue with the situation and don't want to say anything to them or ask them to leave I really am not sure why you posted about them? It's not very professional if you intend to do nothing to improve the situation anyway.
 
Last edited:
The yard owners duty of care does not extend to micro management .
If a horse is abdandoned they must step and provide minimal care water ,forage that sort of thing .
They must keep the yard to a minimum safe standard they must step in when owners are very negilent and I mean very .

They would never be held responsible in the sort of thing we are discussing here .
 
ester said:
I never said legal duty of care, I just said duty of care, my morals wouldn't let me allow the current situation to continue.
Click to expand...

There's no need to be so holier than thou. WHat is the OP actually supposed to do if the livery won't listen? CHuck them off? How will that help the poor pony?
 
I tend to seriously avoid heated threads like this...but I'll be very brave and come up with a few thoughts:

One, please avoid that term duty of care. It is hideously over-used.

Two: the owner actually sounds rather nice if clueless. Perhaps the YO might take the view that educating and helping the pig-ignorant is part of the job.....and try and explain her worries in a nice and smiley way. If that's not easy for her, perhaps having novice liveries isn't the best choice...?
 
turnbuckle said:
Two: the owner actually sounds rather nice if clueless. Perhaps the YO might take the view that educating and helping the pig-ignorant is part of the job.....and try and explain her worries in a nice and smiley way. If that's not easy for her, perhaps having novice liveries isn't the best choice...?
Click to expand...

I don't see how you came to this conclusion as they don't come across that way to me?

JillA said:
Poor pony - the result of a long hard life in the SJ ring, pot hunting so I am told.
Click to expand...
JillA said:
but daughter has mental issues and gives her mother hell if she doesn't get her own way.
Click to expand...

JillA said:
because owners won't accept any advice from me, and I suspect they may have heard only what they wanted to when the vet was telling them.
Click to expand...

JillA said:
If you read the original post you will note that I have already queried them riding this pony more than once, and been stonewalled with it was on the vets advice.
And yes, daughter is an adult with undiagnosed mental problems (most likely aspergers) and kicks off when she can't get her own way, so mother indulges her.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly they sound like arrogant, 'I will do what I want', rude and aggressive kn0bs to me.....
 
ester said:
Why is OP on here then worrying about it if she has the situation under control?
When she was but a week ago complaining about the same owners bringing their horse's in to their stables.
Click to expand...

JillA said:
..............convince inexperienced owners that their horses are fine in the field in August, even in the rain???
I have a livery with two horses and a pony and she fetches them in "for a rest" when the weather is anything but fabulous.One is an obese Sec A gelding who I have arranged a starvation paddock for...........and when he gets a tad muddy she fetches him in and stands him in his stable with a sodding great net full of hay!!
The others can't possibly stay out in the rain....................even though they have perfectly good rain sheets...............and I got there at 8.30 this morning to find they had been in all night, and long since run out of hay. In August. Owner works shifts so it is her OH's job - and he still hadn't arrived by 9.45 a.m. I rang and told them it wasn't acceptable.
I have told her I can't have that on the yard, it isn't fair on any of the horses (one was kicking the door when I got there) but how on earth do I get the message across that these horses (who are not in work btw) are more happy out in the field? Apparently at her old yard they would be in for days on end. She might have to find somewhere else.
May be tough, but I pride myself on a happy yard with happy relaxed horses, and I don't want to see this here.
Click to expand...

A little different when you take in the context, no? If an owner wants to stable whatever time of year then fine, but the underlined and bold statements are welfare issues and yes I would expect a YO to step in.
 
Well the reason for using the quote function was that anyone could click on it and get the entire quote/thread if they wished because previously when I have put things in bold on this thread to highlight the point that has gone unnoticed.

I guess my point is that if those things are welfare issues where you would expect a YO to step in why is riding a lame horse against veterinary advice not one of those situations? I would think a horse potentially in significant pain is much worse than one without hay. That is my confusion I was not taking this thread on it's own but with the previous one about the same owners and the OPs reaction to that situation and this seem really different.

I think essentially the Aspie comment got to me too as it seemed pretty inappropriate, sorry OP, it's a rubbish situation.
 
For goodness sake OP!!!

Speak to livery - tell them that you are concerned about them riding an obviously lame horse and that unless they can provide you with written evidence for the vet that this has been advised you will be giving them a months notice.

Why is this so hard????
 
I stepped in with a past livery on several occasions. Horse would be left unexercised for weeks and then teenage rider would turn up with a friend in tow and they would take turns riding the poor horse over jumps for an hour or more. Would have been longer if I hadn't stepped in each time. After several years they obviously got fed up with my interference and moved yards. Last I heard (from farrier) is that poor neddy is totally knackered and been on box rest for months. Obviously next yard owner did not step in but it is a huge yard compared to mine and so I doubt it was noticed.

I haven't had to do it with any other livery, but wouldn't hesitate to do it again if I saw one of my livery horses being inappropriately treated. More so in a case like yours, OP where the horse is recuperating and under vet's orders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top