If you put a deposit down and it fails the vet ….

Get something in writing that you will get your deposit back. The vet doesn't necessarily write fail, the wording is that the vet deems the horse unsuitable for the activities the purchaser has specified so you might want to make this clear in your communications.

I've had one where the dealer stole my deposit and the horse just disappeared, presumably sold to someone else, it didn't go as far as the vetting. A CCJ didn't get any money back but I did have the satisfaction of knowing that he lost everything when he was put in prison for other reasons.

Another one tried to keep my deposit when the horse was unsuitable due to having kissing spines on xray. I attended the vetting and it was like a completely different horse than at the viewing and I was thinking about pulling out anyway based on the behaviour. This one I did get the money back when I started on the legal action pathway and it was returned before filing the court papers.
 
Horses don’t pass or fail. They are either suitable for intended purpose or not, so deposits should be paid subject to the vetting confirming the horse is suitable for intended purpose. If there are issues that mean the horse isn’t suitable for the job you want then that would be justification to not proceed and you’d be entitled get your deposit back. Assuming you didn’t still want to buy the horse, some people do regardless.

In other words be very clear with the vet what you want the horse for so they can advise whether it’s physically capable or not and make sure the receipt for your deposit says the same thing so you can get your money back if it doesn’t go well.
 
Make sure before you put a deposit down that you can use a vet of your choosing. My local RDA group lost their deposit when they wouldn’t use the vet the (dodgy) seller insisted on.
^^^ Yes deffo! I went to a dealers - later done by Trading Standards - and there was the understanding that you had to have the vet of their choice. The paltry reason given was that it was "less disruptive to the horses on the yard to have the same vets doing vettings". Ummmhh, yurp, sure it was. Reckon vets had to have been in on it as well tbh.
 
Top