Deposits

RebelRebel said:
Found the ad :) Very nice horse but it does say 100% in every way and fantastic ride. However, she failed a vetting and the 100% in every way no longer applies. You would have proceeded with the purchase if she had passed and the vendor knows this. I do feel you should get your money back.

What a shame, the mare sounds terrific. I would have held my breath with a 17 year old going through a vetting, particularly with one that had done a bit.

I am a bit confused, is she lame or 'just' failed the flexion test? I might still go ahead if it is flexion test and could have her medical history
Click to expand...

A friends horse failed a vetting with an abscess a while back. She'd never had a day off in the years they'd had her and the morning the vet was coming out was brought in hopping lame. Luckily vet failed her but told buyers not to let it deflect from her and to vet in a month as horse was ideal and buyers had full vet history.

It really is a snapshot in time and if only flexion I'd want to know if vet was being over-zealous, or if lame I'd want to know why.
 
I'm still curious as to the actual fail.

Looks a lovely type and if price dropped and is simply a minor issue I'd be tempted to see a few more times. It does entirely depend on why failed though and the sellers response (if they felt they were ben mucked around I can understand the deposit not being refunded). The email exchanges with vet sounds a little strange to me.

If definitely not going ahead (and perhaps the vet didn't think horse was suitable more than a problem) perhaps write to say that you are happy with the cost of re-advertising (sensible cost attached) being removed as a token of goodwill but expect the rest returned. The vet themselves doesn't have an issue with the seller do they?
 
Last edited:
dolly-daydream said:
It was a very safe hack, but looked nothing like the photo on nfed where it was advertised.
Click to expand...

Can't see the advert but did the photo have a write-up - out and about last year etc?

I would expect a fair change from the photo I can see to now tbh in fitness and in coat/prep so that wouldn't put me off in the slightest. I wouldn't expect years in between though.
 
It can also depend who did the vetting, if a general vet, rather than a specialist equine vet, they may not be sure of what to expect from a 17 year old hack :eek: Also it helps if they are aware of the riders abilities and expectations, and can therefore match the two together.
 
amymay said:
I suspect the database her vet is talking about is an internal one, rather than a national one.
Click to expand...

Can you think of a logical reason?

As far as I'm concerned the vet should be vetting on what's shown that day and nothing more. The vet history is not a free for all so would be on sellers discretion (I would have no problem with giving this, but would with a vet using background they shouldn't be).

It doesn't sit right with me either way.
 
PandorasJar said:
I would expect a fair change from the photo I can see to now tbh in fitness and in coat/prep so that wouldn't put me off in the slightest. I wouldn't expect years in between though.
Click to expand...

So would I. Horse was pictured competing, and looked in great comp. shape. Rather than perhaps rough, winter, hacking shape....
 
Is it possible that the database the vet is talking about is pethaps an internal or local thing to flag up potential sellers making money on deposits taken for horses that will fail vetting? Surely that sort of thing goes on, it makes sense for vets to keep records like that.
 
PandorasJar said:
Can you think of a logical reason?

As far as I'm concerned the vet should be vetting on what's shown that day and nothing more. The vet history is not a free for all so would be on sellers discretion (I would have no problem with giving this, but would with a vet using background they shouldn't be).

It doesn't sit right with me either way.
Click to expand...

No, can't think of any logical reason at all.

And if that were my horse - I'd be furious.

Wonder if the seller reads this forum??
 
YorksG said:
It can also depend who did the vetting, if a general vet, rather than a specialist equine vet, they may not be sure of what to expect from a 17 year old hack :eek: Also it helps if they are aware of the riders abilities and expectations, and can therefore match the two together.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Very interested as to what the reason for fail was. I have a feeling that I may well agree with the deposit not being refunded...
 
YorksG said:
It can also depend who did the vetting, if a general vet, rather than a specialist equine vet, they may not be sure of what to expect from a 17 year old hack :eek: Also it helps if they are aware of the riders abilities and expectations, and can therefore match the two together.
Click to expand...

It's a very good point actually. Much can depend on the vet. Where one will pass, another might fail - and visa versa.

The last horse I had vetted was 'passed'. The vet I used is first class - and I have nothing but huge respect for him. However I do wonder (knowing now what I do about that particular horse) if another vet that I had originally wanted to do the vetting would have passed it. I suspect not.

It's also interesting to talk to vets about the whole vetting process - and what they feel their obligations to all are in terms of rider ability and horse they are vetting are.
 
blackandwhite said:
Is it possible that the database the vet is talking about is pethaps an internal or local thing to flag up potential sellers making money on deposits taken for horses that will fail vetting? Surely that sort of thing goes on, it makes sense for vets to keep records like that.
Click to expand...

If that's the case then it certainly shouldn't be discussed.

Still doesn't sit right though, if investigated they could look on the individual horses history, other than that the vet couldn't say anything to the next buyer without crossing a legal boundary anyway.
 
I remember, many years ago, a little ride and drive mare being 'vetted' for a young woman with learning difficulties. The animal was being bought to allow her to hack out with her family. The vet doing the vetting, believed himself to be an equine specialist and failed the mare on flexion testing. Unfortunately he wasn't a specialist in RDA type horses, and declared that the mare was not fit for the job. It was my opinion then and it remains so, that the mare was ideal for the job she was to do. She was a cheap as chips coloured, not very fit at the time, kind, bombproof and looked after her rider in ALL situations. She was never going to go round Bramham, or do a full days hunting, or reach dizzy heights of dressage, but she would hack round local roads and tracks all day with her rider.
 
If everything is as O.P. explains - the vendor is at fault and should refund the deposit.

Every sale - regardless what it is, or how much, or whether it's written down - the item being purchased must be - "as advertised" merchantable quality - and it seems as if this horse clearly wasn't. Not only did it not look as good as you hoped but also faild a vetting.

This vetting by the way - is quite a separate issue - it's an additional clause in the conditions you set to go through with the whole purchase and not part of any deposit.

Issue them with an intention to sue in seven days - that might do the trick. If not a small claims summons will cost you £70.00 and usually works without going to court even if they think they're right because many working folk don't want all the bother - winning favour the determined.
 
amymay said:
Alan, I suspect if the vendor's can afford £20k horses, they ain't going worry about being sued for £200.
Click to expand...

Agree with amymay, I suspect that the sellers believe that they have been messed about. The horse was sold as a hack, it failed a flexion test on its front legs (have I got this wrong or do I remember that the original intention of flexion tests was to make the horse temporarily 'lame'?) The horse was not being sold as a competition horse, but to do a specfic job, which tbh it sounds as if it could do. Just as an aside, if I were selling my mare, I would use comp pictures from this summer, she currently resembles an orange yak, but I know that in the summer, her shiny coat and muscles will return! :)
 
YorksG said:
Agree with amymay, I suspect that the sellers believe that they have been messed about. The horse was sold as a hack, it failed a flexion test on its front legs (have I got this wrong or do I remember that the original intention of flexion tests was to make the horse temporarily 'lame'?) The horse was not being sold as a competition horse, but to do a specfic job, which tbh it sounds as if it could do. Just as an aside, if I were selling my mare, I would use comp pictures from this summer, she currently resembles an orange yak, but I know that in the summer, her shiny coat and muscles will return! :)
Click to expand...

^ That is one of the key problems with flexion tests. They are so easily read wrongly now and a good horse written off by a vet not knowing the purpose of them. On lame longer from a heavy handed vet. I do not like them at all.

If a deposit was placed on the horse being fit for purpose and they were taken to court, I wouldn't be too certain on getting my court and legal costs returned if I were the buyer. The horse may well be proven by the sellers vet/independant vet to be entirely fit for purpose, and the vetting/buyer at fault.
 
Thank you for all your intresting posts, I have copied part of the vets letter to the owner of the horse, as I told my vet what was going on, as yet the owner has not refunded the deposit.
-----------------------------------------------------------
vets letter to owner
As you know fortunately I followed the official procedure for a 2 stage vetting (with full written records and identification of the horse) and I will issue an official BEVA certificate stating that in my opinion on the balance of probabilities, the conditions reported do prejudice this horse’s suitability for purchase to be used for for general riding and hacking (ie a fail), should the two of you not resolve the matter between yourselves.
------------------------------------------------------------
I will now go and copy her reply.
 
dolly-daydream said:
On reflection I know I should of walked away, but felt it was rude to now do the viewing, they had taken the time to get the horse ready etc. what do I do now please
Click to expand...

I am confused by this bit, ok if the horse wasn't as advertised I can understand you going ahead with the viewing as you didn't want to appear rude, but that didn't mean you had to put a deposit down.
 
How has the seller responded to the vets letter? Have you sent them a copy so they can see that it's not you being difficult but that you are just acting on the advice of an independent third party.
 
Yes I have had a reply from the seller, they want me to go to the small claims court, as they say I only put the £200 deposit down to hold the horse for the vet, now read that as you like, but in the horse world, it is to show good faith and your intention to instruct a vet, if the horse fails you would get your money back. My vet told me the mare was lame, on the tel the same night he vetted it. about 10% and that at that price and age it was a no no. Would I buy if they reduced the price, no, as I will not ride a lame horse, and no one knew why it was lame, and it was not up to me to pay for any further investigations. I told them I was not going ahead, as it was the advise I had been given, she then ranted on to me, they had lost several intrested buyers as they had not let them view prior to my vetting the following week.
The animal is not 100% as she described.
I only asked the vet to to a brief vetting, heart, eyes and trot her up, as I wanted to hack out most days, he felt the mare was not up to that on the day. To my knowledge she is not sold, and is advertised in several other places. I have now bought a lovely horse, so I am happy. but I intend to get my deposit back, and I WILL go to the s c court. This woman is a twisting dishonest person. My vet will come to the hearing with me foc as he is disgusted with the sellers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top