Failed vetting definition.

ycbm

ycbm

Overwhelmed
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
61,638
Visit site
I keep seeing people being told off for saying a horse has failed a vetting and that there is no pass or fail on a vetting.

Surely there is? A vetting stopped by the vet because they can't complete it, or see no point in completing it, is a failed vetting. A horse judged not fit for purpose by the vet is a failed vetting. No?

And in my book, a horse with question marks (borderline flexion, sarcoids, eye defects, etc) where the buyer has chosen not to proceed because of those question marks is a failed vetting.

What do you reckon?
 
I haven't had a vetting done in years (stupidly) but the last one I did the vet phoned after the vetting and said he had failed, in her opinion he wasn't up to the job. Is that not the case now?
 
For me the first and second of your examples would be a failed vetting - if the vet stops, or judges the horse not fit for purpose.

If the horse with question marks might still be fit for purpose but the buyer doesn't proceed - this is a grey area. And it is important: a seller might refuse to return the deposit because the horse hasn't 'failed'.

If putting down a deposit for a horse prior to vetting, I think I would like to have it clearly stated that 'if the buyer decides not to buy the horse on the basis of findings during a vetting' then the deposit is returned - this might clear up any dispute, even if the vet says the horse is likely fit for a stated purpose but...
 
If completed vets will say that in their opinion the horse is or isn’t suitable for the intended purchasers use.

The latter is a failure. A stopped vetting is a failure.

It’s perfectly possible for the vet to say the horse is suitable but to make comments on findings the buyer needs to be aware of (eg sarcoids) that pose a risk. So in those type of cases the horse may have passed but a buyer may legitimately not wish to take the risk on the findings. In those cases the ‘failure’ is semantics. The seller will usually say passed, the buyer will say failed 😜
 
ycbm said:
I keep seeing people being told off for saying a horse has failed a vetting and that there is no pass or fail on a vetting.

Surely there is? A vetting stopped by the vet because they can't complete it, or see no point in completing it, is a failed vetting. A horse judged not fit for purpose by the vet is a failed vetting. No?

And in my book, a horse with question marks (borderline flexion, sarcoids, eye defects, etc) where the buyer has chosen not to proceed because of those question marks is a failed vetting.

What do you reckon?
Click to expand...
A couple of years ago I had to argue this very point in a legal case! My view is that a vetting is less like an MOT on a car (where there is a very clear pass or fail on certain predefined criteria) and more like a house survey, where you might choose to proceed or walk away, depending on the issues identified. The 'pass' criteria would be less stringent for a horse you wanted to just hack round the lanes compared to a horse aimed at top level competition.

I would agree that where the vet thinks there's no point in continuing the examination, that's a pretty clear fail, regardless of what the rider wants the horse for.
 
Abacus said:
If putting down a deposit for a horse prior to vetting, I think I would like to have it clearly stated that 'if the buyer decides not to buy the horse on the basis of findings during a vetting' then the deposit is returned - this might clear up any dispute, even if the vet says the horse is likely fit for a stated purpose but...
Click to expand...

Very good point! These arguments often occur over whether a deposit should be returned. That wording would be a great help.
.
 
I only really class it as a failed vetting if the vet says 'Yeah this is a bit fat nope'. If the vet says the horse is fit for the job but found XYZ, that isn't a failed vetting IMO.

Whereas I know some people who would say a horse failed a vetting due to finding a sarcoid even if the vet said horse is fit for the job.
 
SlinkyMinxy said:
A couple of years ago I had to argue this very point in a legal case! My view is that a vetting is less like an MOT on a car (where there is a very clear pass or fail on certain predefined criteria) and more like a house survey, where you might choose to proceed or walk away, depending on the issues identified. The 'pass' criteria would be less stringent for a horse you wanted to just hack round the lanes compared to a horse aimed at top level competition.

I would agree that where the vet thinks there's no point in continuing the examination, that's a pretty clear fail, regardless of what the rider wants the horse for.
Click to expand...
Yes this. As I understand it the horse is either fit for the buyer's intended purpose or not (with all the usual caveats). But due to the enormous range of possibilities there I can't see how a horse can be objectively said to have "failed" a vetting. I am having a horse vetted soon. It might be that the vet thinks it's OK for hacking and a bit of jumping, hacking only, or should be fully retired. I will use that information to make a judgment on whether to proceed or not, but I won't be asking the vet to speak in terms of "pass" or "fail".
 
See I think it's quite nuanced. If a horse has a sarcoid declared on viewing and the buyer decides not to buy after hearing the vets warnings about sarcoids, then I wouldn't consider that a fail.

If the sarcoid was undeclared, possibly not even known about by the seller, and the buyer rejects the horse, then I think that's a vet fail.

I think that any result where the vet says "this horse is fit for purpose today but there is issue xyz that may limit how long that will be the case or cost you a lot of money because it's uninsured now I've noted it" is a fail if the buyer walks away.
.
 
Being honest I think the vets won’t say pass or fail now so they can’t be sued. So they are taking care of themselves from that side of it as well.

If it were myself wanting a vetting done and the horse had been advertised as sound and blemish/lump free which was what I specifically wanted then if a sarcoid has been found then this means the horse isn’t as described and the buyer can back out and seller has no recourse. With that I would say it’s a failed vetting.

However if lumps and bumps are found and the buyer knew there was at least one then I’d say no failure could arise from that. Seller might have lied about the amount of sarcoids but the buyer knew that they were possibly there.

Kia had two ‘warts’ that never changed in all the years I had him even after I clipped the heads off them on multiple occasions. So taking the punt with him worked out for me. His vetting was a pass 🙂 as he was fit for the PC/RC type activities he was bought for.

However now I’m not sure I’d take the risk with lumps and bumps and I’d be putting that specifically to any seller.
 
when i had lily vetted, the vet himself actually told me she’d passed…as we know the paperwork didn’t match what he said on the phone, but i definitely think they can “fail”.

If there’s something definitively “wrong” such as lame or obvious pain signs, that’s a fail in my eyes, and if it doesn’t match what you were looking for, then it’s “failed” for what your intended use was - for me, sarcoids would be a big no (just using the example from a recent one), but other big no’s for other people wouldn’t bother me - for example a very mild bout of lami i feel i could manage, whereas a lot of people would run for the hills
 
A long time ago my friend had a horse vetted and she was a happy hacker with the idea of doing some fun rides and nothing higher . Vet said she would be fine for my friend but he wouldn’t have passed the horse for a person who would be more demanding in what they want to do, i.e competing in jumping etc . She retired her when she was 28 after enjoying her for 10 years with no issues , she had 3 years retired. That’s my understanding of passing for suitability of new owner, obviously it needs to be sound in wind and limb on the day of the vetting . My own horse was cheap and showed slight unevenness of small circle on concrete yard so he stopped the vetting and said she would be fine for hacking only . I decided to buy her anyway and the only lameness she had was after any accident , unfortunately she got cushings and started to be a bit pottery in her movement and after 6 months of retirement her cushings levels kept increasing even with having 4 prascend daily so I PTS before laminitis set in. I rode her for 14 years mainly hacking and schooling
 
AppyLover1996 said:
A vetting that gets stopped by the vet because they can't complete it, or don't see a point in completing it, I would class as a failed vetting, as would the horse not being fit for purpose as that is the whole point of a vetting - to see if the horse will be suitable for the job you wish it to do x
Click to expand...
I sold a horse where the vet stopped the vetting. I had already told the buyer that the horse would not pass, it was and 17hh older shireX, and predictability it failed the flexion test. The buyer wasn't present, so I asked the vet to continue as the buyer would to know anything else. Well the vet was a bit offhand with me, and just said no.
I then had the buyer, who still wanted the horse asking me if he had said anything else, when he wouldn't discuss anything with me.
My gripe is, you pay a fee for the vetting and really its not good enough to stop because it failed X, unless continuing would cause the horse distress. If you pay to have a house surveyed(not a buyers survey) they list all the faults and its up to to decide if you want proceed with the sale.

The buyer still bought the horse, I didn't have a full vet history, I think it was a sell off from a riding school, it was 17hh and my fourteen year old daughter could ride it at canter in an open 20 acre field so its good points to the buyer outweighed it's obvious faults. I just thought the buyer had not been served well by the vet. I as a seller thought, well there could have been something else, so the vet did me a favour.
It had been bought for a friends husband to learn to ride on at auction, and I think it wasn't smart enough, it had a seriously huge head, and really too big for my daughter to do PC on. Its the only horse I have ever made any money on net, because even including the keep, the tack I bought, vaccs and passport, I still made a small profit, and he went to be a spoiled pet.
 
I like the comparison of a vetting being equivalent of a house survey. The survey identifies any potential problems which could impact your decision to buy. You could decide to buy anyway. The benefits could outweigh the disadvantages, or you could adjust your expectations to suit, or your heart overrules the head, or it becomes a pity buy, or a gamble.
You have paid the vet for a service, so there is no reason to stop at the first issue unless the person paying for the service agrees that it is pointless to proceed or it is detrimental to the horse.
Personally I really don't like the flexion test. I appreciate that it does highlight problems, which is its purpose, and possibly does no harm in a healthy limb, but I think that if there is an underlying issue already there then the flexion test can do some real damage. It is crude and extreme.
 
I had a vetting last year with these comments:


1744711154775.png

1744711219328.png


Obviously I didn't buy it and I would class this as a vetting failure. However, the agent had £1.3K of my money and as she didn't agree with my vet that there was a problem with the horse, felt that it had passed and so was entitled to keep my deposit. The quite detailed contract that her solicitor had prepared and she had signed did state that if the vetting failed I would get my money back.

It's really a problem that the word FAIL is not clearly on the report as these sales livery agents can collect a lot of deposits off people and still go on to keep the horse, especially if it's not obviously lame.
 
I know they don't fail per se but I think of it as a 'fail' or not suitable for the intended job.

So same horse could 'fail' or not be considered fit for purpose for an owner that wants to jump 1.30 regularly but could 'pass' or be considered fit for intended purpose for someone else that wants to jump at 80/90cm and do prelim dressage for example.

The first person could say the horse failed a vet but the second would say the horse passed, despite the same findings in the horse.
 
nutjob said:
I had a vetting last year with these comments:


View attachment 158243

View attachment 158244


Obviously I didn't buy it and I would class this as a vetting failure. However, the agent had £1.3K of my money and as she didn't agree with my vet that there was a problem with the horse, felt that it had passed and so was entitled to keep my deposit. The quite detailed contract that her solicitor had prepared and she had signed did state that if the vetting failed I would get my money back.

It's really a problem that the word FAIL is not clearly on the report as these sales livery agents can collect a lot of deposits off people and still go on to keep the horse, especially if it's not obviously lame.
Click to expand...

To me that wording used by the vet would support a failure. I would have taken agent to small claims for deposit return.
 
honetpot said:
I sold a horse where the vet stopped the vetting. I had already told the buyer that the horse would not pass, it was and 17hh older shireX, and predictability it failed the flexion test. The buyer wasn't present, so I asked the vet to continue as the buyer would to know anything else. Well the vet was a bit offhand with me, and just said no.
I then had the buyer, who still wanted the horse asking me if he had said anything else, when he wouldn't discuss anything with me.
My gripe is, you pay a fee for the vetting and really its not good enough to stop because it failed X, unless continuing would cause the horse distress. If you pay to have a house surveyed(not a buyers survey) they list all the faults and its up to to decide if you want proceed with the sale.

The buyer still bought the horse, I didn't have a full vet history, I think it was a sell off from a riding school, it was 17hh and my fourteen year old daughter could ride it at canter in an open 20 acre field so its good points to the buyer outweighed it's obvious faults. I just thought the buyer had not been served well by the vet. I as a seller thought, well there could have been something else, so the vet did me a favour.
It had been bought for a friends husband to learn to ride on at auction, and I think it wasn't smart enough, it had a seriously huge head, and really too big for my daughter to do PC on. Its the only horse I have ever made any money on net, because even including the keep, the tack I bought, vaccs and passport, I still made a small profit, and he went to be a spoiled pet.
Click to expand...
I have just remembered I also sold a pony that failed the vet, it had just been shod and was a bit footy. Vet suggested leave it a week and revet. It was a very nice ex show pony, but just not showy enough, so it being sold as a PC pony. I knocked £500 off it and they picked up a week later with no revetting. Two years later it had some PC results and they were selling it for more than double what they paid for it.
 
I think which box the vet ticks clearly denotes pass/fail. I'd be furious @nutjob.

I think that issues arising on a vetting can muddy the waters though.

With Dolly, she had a sarcoid so I disclosed it on the ad, followed up with with a photo of it, next to a thumb for size reference when someone wanted to view, and then when it came to vetting I clarified with the vet that the buyer already knew - which he confirmed also with the buyer. So it was not discussed other than 'yes that's the sarcoid'. If that buyer then walked away because on 2nd thoughts she does not want a pony with a sarcoid , I would have retained the depsoit.

But if it was a new finding and the vet said 'up to you' then I'd return the deposit. But not enturely sure what the legal position would be on that. If a vet said horse has X, but that's not an issue, I'm not worried about that' but a risk averse buyer walked away then again it is a grey area. Like a small inactive splint? Very few vetting have NOTHING coming up at all.
 
Some stuff is suitability for the job and some stuff is buyers choice. A pass is a fit and healthy horse for the job. A fail is it’s not suitable. It gets more nuanced around things like feet, Sarcoids etc which will be buyers choice and they are not fails IMO. I had one with skin lumps disclosed but always felt they were young horse herpes ones as not grey and the vet found one (vet was very laid back about them) I didn’t know about so that was one too many for the buyer. They did clear up as expected. I had another with cataracts - we had them properly checked by a specialist and they were the genetic ones so not an issue but would have been buyers choice. That buyer proceeded. Heart murmurs would be another to perhaps come under this category.
 
It has so many levels though. My horse would not be able to pass a vetting performed for a jumping horse, he’s not a jumper. He could also fail a vetting for not being totally clean limbed as he has cpl. He did however pass a 2* declaring him sound for my purposes (happy hacker/ school work) and healthy heart/eyes. I didn’t do it to have paper saying he was perfect for everything, I just wanted to ensure he was sound at the time of purchase.
 
My cob had juvenile warts and a cosmetic cataract noted on his vetting. I was happy with both (although he had a flare up of the warts when he moved which worried me - all gone now) but obviously there are insurance exclusions. Vet said he was fine for general riding club activities which was what I wanted him for.

My Appy is interesting. She is retired for good reason but I have had a vet see her on a good day and say they would pass her for riding club work or hacking if they didn't know her medical history. Its one of the reasons I'd never buy anything that had been in the field for any length of time because she really doesn't stand up to work.
 
nutjob said:
I had a vetting last year with these comments:


View attachment 158243

View attachment 158244


Obviously I didn't buy it and I would class this as a vetting failure. However, the agent had £1.3K of my money and as she didn't agree with my vet that there was a problem with the horse, felt that it had passed and so was entitled to keep my deposit. The quite detailed contract that her solicitor had prepared and she had signed did state that if the vetting failed I would get my money back.

It's really a problem that the word FAIL is not clearly on the report as these sales livery agents can collect a lot of deposits off people and still go on to keep the horse, especially if it's not obviously lame.
Click to expand...
That horse could become a "nice little earner" for the agent!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top