For your info - buyer beware article

yes it should be mandatory, but at the moment it is not and it is up to the seller not the auction house, so you cant pin the blame on the auction house.

Yes the horse was drugged, god only knows what had happened to get it to that point but it was and i dont think it was the sale that caused them to drug it, the horse was visious and took several rather large chunks out of my mum when we were trying to load it, no i didnt get it vetted but i knew i was taking the risk and had at least seen the horse to know that it had all 4 legs attached.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't we getting two issues a bit confused here? The issue of how horses are treated at sales is quite separate from the problem of ignorant novices being conned into buying unsuitable horses sight unseen by dodgy dealers. One has no real bearing on the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do have a bearing because many of the horses that go through sale rings are bought by dealers and sold on to naive owners.
 
[ QUOTE ]
yes it should be mandatory, but at the moment it is not and it is up to the seller not the auction house, so you cant pin the blame on the auction house.

Yes the horse was drugged, god only knows what had happened to get it to that point but it was and i dont think it was the sale that caused them to drug it, the horse was visious and took several rather large chunks out of my mum when we were trying to load it, no i didnt get it vetted but i knew i was taking the risk and had at least seen the horse to know that it had all 4 legs attached.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it should be mandatory too - I was not "pining the blame on anyone" just asking.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't we getting two issues a bit confused here? The issue of how horses are treated at sales is quite separate from the problem of ignorant novices being conned into buying unsuitable horses sight unseen by dodgy dealers. One has no real bearing on the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do have a bearing because many of the horses that go through sale rings are bought by dealers and sold on to naive owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, then i believe that "naive buyers" should take on board a bit more responsibilty and learn at least the basics before venturing into horse ownership.

there is far too much "it wasn't my fault" these days...
 
[ QUOTE ]

They do have a bearing because many of the horses that go through sale rings are bought by dealers and sold on to naive owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

And? Do you think that this wouldn't happen if the sales were forced to provide better conditions? Crooks are crooks, and will pick up horses from anywhere. Good sales, bad sales, private sellers, anywhere. I could go over to Ireland with a horsebox and pick up half a dozen sad old coloured cobs for a song, bring them home, stuff them full of grass and bute to mask any problems and sell them on for a fortune. Crooks will always find ways to get hold of cheap horses. Lots of them even breed their own.

Look, i agree with both the issues you have raised, but i think that by conflating the two together, you are actually doing BOTH issues a disservice. The welfare of horses at sales is important, as is the need for novices to do their homework before buying a horse, but they are not necessarily best addressed in the same breath.
 
By the way, if the Booths had bought their duff horse from a private seller, or someone who could not be proven to be a dealer, they would have had zero recompense. What would they have done then?

If the horse was in such a poor condition when it walked off the transport, why did they sign for it? Incidentally, i know they have said they have hung onto the second horse they got from Bombproof, but what happened to Samson?
 
To staffsoakcake72 ever herd of caveat emptor? It means buyer beware and it is one of the main tenants of a free market. The buyer always has a choice to buy or not to buy, they are never forced to do anything. So in essence its there own responsibility to check what they are purchasing before they buy it. Yes there are certain protections but these usually very minimal to protect the free market that has given our country it's wealth.
There is no reason why sellers should have to be 'trustable'. Buyers should accept some personable responisbility instead of whining whenever they've made a stupid mistake and then force someone else to pay for it!!
Yes, bombproof is a bad seller and there comes a point when they've gone too far but the buyer was a fool and should never have bought without at least going and seeing it first. He made his bed, he should lie in it.
I was wondering if you had a link to the judgement itself or at least tell me exactly why the judge made his decision as he did and what it was for. I'm a law student and extremely curious.

As for the auction, theres nothing really wrong wiht that place, maybe it should have water, feed and bedding but htats the owners responsibility not the auction, its the owner that can get done for neglect. Why voices for horses feels there ought to be 'awareness' for something thats not a problem I dont know.
 
With regard to the video yes I agree the horse and ponies looked to have good body scores but many were distressed and I find that unacceptable. I have seen horses first hand being terrified to even leave a box as they had literally been brought from the field to the sale and that was at an otherwise respectable sale at Leominster!


have to ask you about this one staffs...

if, as you say, these animals were straight out of a field.. and sold at Leominster..how were they sold? as only haltered animals are put through the ring there..i've not ever seen anything driven through as they are at markets..
 
People mention that horses bought from sales are sold on to the ignorant and inexperianced...... but what happens when 'poor mr/mrs new too horse's' finds that they can't manage the horse? guess what - it goes to the next available dealer and back to the sale. It is very mean to rip off a novice and not something I would indulge in, but I really can't find that much sympathy because most of the time cruelty & neglect are perpatrated by the well meaning but clueless. Not the big bad dealers that are mostly just trying to earn a living.
 
I have to say yes it is sad that horses go through markets but the standards I saw were perfectly acceptable.
Bedding would have been better and water would be available but it looked a reasonable market.
The ones that need to be targetted are the "sales" such as Stow and Applelby where the horses are ridden by heavy blokes and are roughed up.
 
Yes I lostmymarbles I am fully aware of that expression and the meaning thankyou.
JM07 these horses were believed to have been straight from the field due to their response at the auction. There was a crowd around the box as they were being unloaded and people were told to move back etc as well as one individual giving the seller/transporter what for. The crowd had formed I think due to what had been witnessed prior to me actually reaching that point where the box was as one lady in the crowd told me that it hadn't been pleasant to watch. I didn't see all of what was going on but I believe these animals were roughly handled and the guy was struggling to get them out of the box. The horses looked rough and ready as did the dealer/seller too. They didn't look the well bred, cared for type but like ones that had been left in fields to munch then loaded and packed up for the sales.
They probably did have headcollars on but I honestly can't remember as it was nearly two years ago. The group of people that had gathered were told to move on and these horses had arrived fairly late on the scene and at the time I was meandering over to the sales ring to get a good seat for viewing and bidding, having already made a note of the lots I was interested in. I don't know if these horses were eventually unloaded or not as I didn't hang around to find out. If I had been there just perusing I would have done but I went with the attention to buy and some of the lots I was interested in were mainly early on so I had to make sure I wasn't late in the ring.
I hope that offers some kind of explanation? I know my memory is a little rusty but I can honestly say out of all the ones I saw unloaded that day those two horses ( think there was two anyway?) looked absolutely petrified and as though they had never even been boxed before.
However I must also say about that sale I went to that most of the horses I looked at had water and /or hay in their pens that I can remember
 
That may be have been the case I don't know? Wish I had had the time to stay and find out as I really felt sorry for those horses but I didn't so I will never know.
But I would guess you are right. From what I saw at Leominster that day it was a very well conducted sale and I think perhaps a few auction houses should take a leaf out of their book and follow suit.
 
can you remember which month it was??

i have back catalogues going back to 2000....

bloody anorack i know but it enables me to keep an eye on certain sellers, their "agents" and of course prices
 
Nothing wrong on the video..... typical sale, horses a bit stressed, especially the unhandled ones but they would be just as stressed at the start of their training.

Buying unseen is an interesting concept...... I would certainly not contemplate doing it, but I am not a very trusting person, the buyer obviously was and now knows why its such a bad idea
frown.gif
frown.gif
 
Sorry but the same naive ill informed buyer who buys his horse unseen could well be the one who goes on to bath it in cold water after a days hunting, or feed it concentrates and wonder why its mad, or leave it in a field full of ragwort.
Ignorance is not a good enough excuse.
SORRY!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I will pm you a bit later with the information as I have to nip out now.

[/ QUOTE ]

cheers....
grin.gif
 
Just read the link, I think your website is brilliant and very informative.

However, having watched the vid - I didn't find it particularly upsetting, the horses looked in pretty good shape albeit nervous but I guess you would expect that from any horse in a sale environment. I do agree that they should have access to food/water when in the pens.

I can't help but think that it would be a good idea to have to have some kind of assessments or training courses that have to be passed before being able to purchase a horse, although I can see the problems this may cause. It would however ensure less knowledgable potential horse owners were more aware of the commitment involved in owning a horse and have a good standard of basic care before making a purchase which might help avoid mistakes. I do think a lot of the problems stem from ignorance.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They do have a bearing because many of the horses that go through sale rings are bought by dealers and sold on to naive owners.

[/ QUOTE ]

And? Do you think that this wouldn't happen if the sales were forced to provide better conditions? Crooks are crooks, and will pick up horses from anywhere. Good sales, bad sales, private sellers, anywhere. I could go over to Ireland with a horsebox and pick up half a dozen sad old coloured cobs for a song, bring them home, stuff them full of grass and bute to mask any problems and sell them on for a fortune. Crooks will always find ways to get hold of cheap horses. Lots of them even breed their own.

Look, i agree with both the issues you have raised, but i think that by conflating the two together, you are actually doing BOTH issues a disservice. The welfare of horses at sales is important, as is the need for novices to do their homework before buying a horse, but they are not necessarily best addressed in the same breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes of course there are crooks at every level in every area and nook and cranny of this industry but the information we are gathering here shows better conditions at sales tend to attract different people and the sales environment does make a difference. Lower end there is a lot of trade to trade sales. Higher there is more Trade to public, but in general the average horse owner or perspective owner will buy through an advert before a market. Regarding doing both subjects a disservice - this is just one article that is doing what it was intended to do - get feedback from across the industry and start to introduce the concept of looking at the bigger picture rather than always dealing with subjects in isolation and - it is working. People are getting in touch from all over the place. The negative feedback is just as important to us as the positive, which is why I posted on this forum. I obviously believe in better conditions and protection for owners and equines but I need to know the arguments and reasons against which help me build a stronger campaign and this forum never fails to deliver.

We are also working with both these issues as well as others separately. What happened to both Preston and Sampson is in the article.

ilostmymarbles
You said "Why voices for horses feels there ought to be 'awareness' for something that’s not a problem I don’t know."

If that is your perception than I agree you wouldn’t know.
Re Caveat emptor Latin for 'let the buyer beware'. Yes it implies a buyer must ensure that goods about to be purchased are free from defects and that he/she bears the risk but what you do not mention is a seller is also is legally obliged not to mislead the buyer


Shannagolden

I understand what yo are saying but if the buyer got the horse they were promised and paid for in the first place it would not be returned to a dealer.

tiggy1
I agree there are many sales that need to be looked at yes water is available at this market but it is up to the seller to put it in the pens – the majority don’t and yes in my opinion that is neglect. Many lower end market lots are suffering symptoms of water deprivation or at least dehydrated but as long as nothing is a rack of ribs or dead lame or being roughed up by big blocks – that is acceptable?

JM07 you said “well, then i believe that "naive buyers" should take on board a bit more responsibilty and learn at least the basics before venturing into horse ownership.

Which is why we published the article. If these subjects are not talked about and publicized how do naïve buyers know what can happen. If we just call them stupid and do nothing how can they learn and become responsible?

merlinsQuest

You said "Nothing wrong on the video..... typical sale, horses a bit stressed, especially the unhandled ones but they would be just as stressed at the start of their training."

IMO If a horse is stressed at the start of their training someone is doing something wrong.

EnterAtA
I agree novice owners need a lot more help – more and more are contacting us and based on their information and concerns we are working towards putting together a comprehensive information and support package. The industry is encouraging more and more new owners while inadequately providing help & support for them.
 
Actually, I thought the sad thing was that the buyer just sent the horse back without wondering what was going to happen to it at the other end... I read somewhere that the horse was sold on again and that the lady who bought it kept it and retired it to a field because she felt it would just be passed on again.

I also have to wonder whether someone with a debilitating chronic illness like MS would have been able to look after the horse (mucking out and so on) even if it had been what he wanted. If the horse was wanted for physiotherapy, wouldn't it have been better to go to a riding school?
 
For the owner in hindsight - perhaps yes but I also understand why people want a horse of their own. I know someone who is paralyzed from the waist down and felt patronized when he went to a riding school.
 
[ QUOTE ]
we are working towards putting together a comprehensive information and support package. The industry is encouraging more and more new owners while inadequately providing help & support for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have to say, i think there is a TON of information out there about buying your first horse. If you go on Google and type in buy my first horse or buying my first horse, you get in excess of 250k hits. There is a book available on Amazon that is actually called Buying Your First Horse, i doubt anyone would be confused about the content of that book and who it was aimed at.

I think your idea of producing an information pack is a really good one - but I seriously doubt you would have success at getting it into the hands of those who really need it. People who think they already know it all, and don't need any interfering experts telling them what to do, won't take any more notice of it than they would of a 190+ page book. If the Booths were planning to do "home hippotherapy" with that horse, that implies they either did not have an instructor or thought they could teach themselves.

Despite being able to find a dodgy dealer on the internet, they did not manage to find the hundreds of websites advising against buying horses sight unseen, and giving really good advice on buying and trying horses. That suggests to me that there was rather more than just naivety going on there.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I know someone who is paralyzed from the waist down and felt patronized when he went to a riding school.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am able-bodied, but overweight, unfit and a terrible rider, and i have been patronised at riding schools since the age of 4. It goes with the territory, i think.

Someone who was paralyzed from the waist down would almost certainly not be able to ride at a "normal" riding school unless it had experience in catering to severely disabled riders. Why didn't he go to RDA instead?

By the way, i am very sorry - i seem to be constantly having a go at you. I honestly admire what you are working to achieve, both in educating new owners and improving conditions for horses at sales.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we are working towards putting together a comprehensive information and support package. The industry is encouraging more and more new owners while inadequately providing help & support for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have to say, i think there is a TON of information out there about buying your first horse. If you go on Google and type in buy my first horse or buying my first horse, you get in excess of 250k hits. There is a book available on Amazon that is actually called Buying Your First Horse, i doubt anyone would be confused about the content of that book and who it was aimed at.

I think your idea of producing an information pack is a really good one - but I seriously doubt you would have success at getting it into the hands of those who really need it. People who think they already know it all, and don't need any interfering experts telling them what to do, won't take any more notice of it than they would of a 190+ page book. If the Booths were planning to do "home hippotherapy" with that horse, that implies they either did not have an instructor or thought they could teach themselves.

Despite being able to find a dodgy dealer on the internet, they did not manage to find the hundreds of websites advising against buying horses sight unseen, and giving really good advice on buying and trying horses. That suggests to me that there was rather more than just naivety going on there.

[/ QUOTE ]


No problem trundle - but by the time I have gone through each and every reason VFH does things I may be drawing a pension and you will be bored to death.

Yes you are right there is a TON of information out there BUT the question we get asked is where to start – what do you do when the advice is conflicting, what about insurance? what about first aid? should a horse wear shoes? should it live in or out? how do I avoid getting conned? I have a problem where can I go? As I said before we act on what people want - new owners are coming to us so I am confident we will get to some. The site currently gets a quarter of a million hits a month and its growing. I don’t go looking for problem areas or try and drum up work - we can barely cope this end. People seem grateful they get support, are listened to and if we don’t have the answers we will find them. I have worked in the industry for 13 years VFH is only 6 months old and was set up based on demand.

I am finding the constant analyzing of this owner unpleasant so wont comment on that any more.

As for the paralyzed rider - my mistake I did not say an RDA riding school – it was
 
Voices for horses. Yes there is a legal obligation not to say anything to deliberatly mislead. There is, however, a vast difference between that and ommiting to mention somehting even if it is important. A seller has no obligation to mention any faults thats for the buyer to take precaution to find out.

According to your article, the only thing bombproof mislead them on was the money back guarantee/14days to swap horses. 'out of bombproof training' does not necessarily imply that the horse was infact broken and unless there was anything in the advert about the horse being 'in perfect health' then theres no implication that the horse was healthy.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Voices for horses. Yes there is a legal obligation not to say anything to deliberatly mislead. There is, however, a vast difference between that and ommiting to mention somehting even if it is important. A seller has no obligation to mention any faults thats for the buyer to take precaution to find out.

According to your article, the only thing bombproof mislead them on was the money back guarantee/14days to swap horses. 'out of bombproof training' does not necessarily imply that the horse was infact broken and unless there was anything in the advert about the horse being 'in perfect health' then theres no implication that the horse was healthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like you say there is a legal obligation not to say anything misleading - so would you not agree that telling someone a horse is out of bomb proof training is misleading? Furthermore do you not agree that the statement ‘out of bomb proof training’ DOES imply the horse was not only broken it was in deed ‘bomb proof’ a term commonly used to describe exceptionally safe horses.

I do not personally believe the term should ever be used for a flight animal but that is another matter.
 
Voices for horses,

I dont think 'bombproof' training necessarily implies the horse was broken. the training might have been done entirley in hand. The horse might be 'exceptionally safe' inhand but not ridden, unless he deliberatly said anything about the horse being broken, then i dont think he has 'mislead' but rather allowed people to make assumptions that they havnt verified.
You could also play semantics, and say that since the name of the company was 'bombproof' that the phrase 'out of bombproof training' might only imply that it has come out of thier training, which might be barely anything.
Beware of using 'commonly used' meanings. Legaly you dont look at what a word 'commonly used' means but what its actually could mean.
 
As you will see in the article they were sent a DVD of the first horse , “being tacked up and ridden” in which case I disagree with you - the sellers information could be regarded as misleading.

Emma
 
That was a video of the first horse being ridden. Thats not in question. It was the second horse that was unbroken. There was nothing about the second horse being ridden. nor was there anyhting said about it being rideable. You cant use one horse to imply the attributes of another. They accepted the second horse without being told if it was rideable or not. They should have been more careful when taking the second horse, especially as they knew by then that the dealer was a bit dodgy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top