Loanee won't give my horse back

[Tinseltoes]

Doesnt seem fair that suddenly OP wants her horse back. If the contract hasnt been broken,ie abuse to horse,then why does she all of a sudden want him back???????
I can see it from the loanees view too.
I have a loan pony here with me and I dont see head or tale of her owner,(not done for neally 6 yea,and if she turned up ,shed get a ear bashing. (have on loan till payed for).

 

[Luci07]

loan means loan. Also guys you keep overlooking the fact that the loaner had agreed to buy and has now changed her mind..

 

[AmyMay]

I'm assuming that you've gone and collected your horse by now.

But if not - just go and get it.

 

[Tinseltoes]

tHINK THERES MORE TO THIS THAN IS BEING SAID ON HERE.Sounds complicated.

 

[Luci07]

Doesnt seem fair that suddenly OP wants her horse back. If the contract hasnt been broken,ie abuse to horse,then why does she all of a sudden want him back???????
I can see it from the loanees view too.
I have a loan pony here with me and I dont see head or tale of her owner,(not done for neally 6 yea,and if she turned up ,shed get a ear bashing. (have on loan till payed for).

Do you want to clarify your last point? your horse is on loan for 6 years but "on loan till paid for" - does that mean you owe the owner money for the horse then?

 

[Luci07]

I totally agree with that statement, but when someone usually loans their horse out on a permenant basis thats what it means unless the horse is being mistreated or abused/neglected in some way. Its not really fair on the person who has been given the horse on a permenant loan to have it taken back for no other reason than the owner wants to sell it on. The owner should of just put it out on loan with yearly contracts so the person loaning the horse knows exactly where they stand.

If you read the first post, you will see that the loaner had agreed to purchase the horse, then nothing happens.

Also MHOL (who does know the legalities) has stated that permanent loan doesn't mean anything - it is still a loan. There have also been numerous posts on here whereby people have queried how to ensure ownership and even a payment of £1 would secure this. I am not sympathetic as my mare went out on loan - she went to a nice woman, had no problems at all but at the end of the day, when the mare looked to be completely finished as far as work was concerned, she handed the mare back to me. Thats why she took out a loan - the ultimate responsibility lay with me. Luckily the mare seems to have come good enough to enjoy hacking again but that is irrelevant. The benefit of a loan from the carers perspective is - no outlay and when the horse can't work any more, they can hand it back. And if someone was given a horse that was so good they could really go places with it competitively, then that is their lucky day. Why should the person who DID pay for the horse in the first place lose out? It does work both ways! The "I have put so much work into this horse and now its worth so much more" is irrelevant. If the horse looked to be so fantastic then it should have been raised - and addressed earlier.

I did have a horse on loan and was looking to buy a while ago. He had numerous issues (not just physical) and I needed to see if we could work through them. I agreed a price up front and when the time came, the owner jacked the price up. In that instance I stuck to my guns and sent the horse back. He had numerous issues, could not actually do the job I had got him for but was brilliant on the dressage front (totally screwed up for jumping). So I have been on the receiving end when it has gone sour as well.

 

[otter2]

i think there's got to be a big piece of the puzzle missing! if it's exactly as the OP is claiming surely they would be straight to the yard to get their horse, forget anyone trying to stop them or the horse's tack and rugs!!

i think if you loan a horse out the owner and loaner should have to right to terminate the loan at any time, with notice preferably.

 

[Tinseltoes]

Do you want to clarify your last point? your horse is on loan for 6 years but "on loan till paid for" - does that mean you owe the owner money for the horse then?

Not exactly because there is a discrepency to whether she is actually the rightful owner,which is why CAB sent me to a solicitor.The woman was constantly lying about ownership saying she was owner,then she wasnt the owner,refuses to give passport with the pony.Been advised to not pay her anything,because of the lies.The woman has NOT been to see the pony once in the 6 years Ive had her and I havent heard from her in almost 5 1/2 years.Complicated. Whenever ive asked her for the passport,her tune changes and she says shes not the owner and that the loan agreement is void and I should rip it up.She must think Im stupid as if im going to rip the loan agreement up.I DONT THINK SO.
-solicitor says its a valid contract.Woman was trying to pull a fast one.
why should I pay for a pony until I know who the real owner is..

 

[Dizzle]

I see your in Gloucestershire, yard is owned by person's grandparents... sounds just like my old yard and if it is, I would advise you to get the horse out of there ASAP, would rather not go into details in case it isn't the same yard.

Could you PM me the name of the yard?

 

[jodie3]

Having been in the position of having a horse on loan with a now ex-friend who wouldn't return her can I say that it isn't always that simple to go to the yard to collect the horse?

In my case I was met with threats of violence and intimidation and the horse was promptly moved to another yard.

I'm not saying that this is the case here but if you don't get any help from police/rspca and are met with locked gates sadly there isn't always alot you can do without ending up on the wrong side of the law yourself.

 

[Luci07]

Not exactly because there is a discrepency to whether she is actually the rightful owner,which is why CAB sent me to a solicitor.The woman was constantly lying about ownership saying she was owner,then she wasnt the owner,refuses to give passport with the pony.Been advised to not pay her anything,because of the lies.The woman has NOT been to see the pony once in the 6 years Ive had her and I havent heard from her in almost 5 1/2 years.Complicated. Whenever ive asked her for the passport,her tune changes and she says shes not the owner and that the loan agreement is void and I should rip it up.She must think Im stupid as if im going to rip the loan agreement up.I DONT THINK SO.
-solicitor says its a valid contract.Woman was trying to pull a fast one.
why should I pay for a pony until I know who the real owner is..

which puts you in a really nasty position because - in theory, someone else could well turn up claiming ownership. Maybe you could do a reverse post on this forum to try to find the real owner and bypass the woman who loaned him to you..

 

[Petunia]

A person who takes a horse on loan runs the risk always of the owner taking the horse back - for whatever reason. Just because this woman is looking after the horse well makes no difference whatsoever, and whatever reason the owner wants the horse back is also neither here nor there.

Whether there is an element of sympathy for the woman loaning the horse or not is irrelevant - the owner owns the horse - a "permanent" loan is actually a pretty stupid expression and is somewhat meaningless.

You cannot simply go and take the horse back either - particularly if it means entering someone else's property - you can be sued for possible criminal damage - even if you haven't actually done anything they can make it look like you have, and then you are in trouble. You have to make sure the law is always on your side and you behave accordingly.

I would send a letter immediately unemotionally demanding either the agreed sale price for the horse and tack within 14 days or return of the horse, or agreed collection within that time, otherwise you will either appoint solicitors for the recovery of horse or money together with costs with no further recourse to the person. I would also say that you expect the horse to be looked after and the responsibility for that remains with them and they will be held responsible for any damage to tack or horse.

Obviously you will be advised by MHOL, but you should get into writing and put the case with a date asap to get matters moving.

 

[Tinseltoes]

which puts you in a really nasty position because - in theory, someone else could well turn up claiming ownership. Maybe you could do a reverse post on this forum to try to find the real owner and bypass the woman who loaned him to you..

Knowone will turn up as she doesnt know the name of where I keep her.Shes only been twice,once in pitch black & once in the day.She does not know the area as they live about 2 hours away. I think the original owner is from same place as her.
I have the gate locked and police patrol area as well. The pony isnt microchipped either,nor freezemarked.
So if she or whoever tried to say the pony belonged to them they would have to have proof pony was theirs.So you can see why.

 

[The_snoopster]

If you read the first post, you will see that the loaner had agreed to purchase the horse, then nothing happens.

Also MHOL (who does know the legalities) has stated that permanent loan doesn't mean anything - it is still a loan. There have also been numerous posts on here whereby people have queried how to ensure ownership and even a payment of £1 would secure this. I am not sympathetic as my mare went out on loan - she went to a nice woman, had no problems at all but at the end of the day, when the mare looked to be completely finished as far as work was concerned, she handed the mare back to me. Thats why she took out a loan - the ultimate responsibility lay with me. Luckily the mare seems to have come good enough to enjoy hacking again but that is irrelevant. The benefit of a loan from the carers perspective is - no outlay and when the horse can't work any more, they can hand it back. And if someone was given a horse that was so good they could really go places with it competitively, then that is their lucky day. Why should the person who DID pay for the horse in the first place lose out? It does work both ways! The "I have put so much work into this horse and now its worth so much more" is irrelevant. If the horse looked to be so fantastic then it should have been raised - and addressed earlier.

I did have a horse on loan and was looking to buy a while ago. He had numerous issues (not just physical) and I needed to see if we could work through them. I agreed a price up front and when the time came, the owner jacked the price up. In that instance I stuck to my guns and sent the horse back. He had numerous issues, could not actually do the job I had got him for but was brilliant on the dressage front (totally screwed up for jumping). So I have been on the receiving end when it has gone sour as well.

And there in your own words is the reason why I would not loan a horse or loan out any of my horses, there are just too many grey areas. If I want a horse I go out and buy one, if I find I can no longer keep one I sell it.

 

[Luci07]

And there in your own words is the reason why I would not loan a horse or loan out any of my horses, there are just too many grey areas. If I want a horse I go out and buy one, if I find I can no longer keep one I sell it.

Afraid I would agree with you now unless it was to someone I actually knew and my mare stayed on the yard...

 

[Dancing Queen]

did she get her horse back?

 

[Tinseltoes]

did she get her horse back?

Dont know?????

 

[sprytzer]

Not exactly because there is a discrepency to whether she is actually the rightful owner,which is why CAB sent me to a solicitor.The woman was constantly lying about ownership saying she was owner,then she wasnt the owner,refuses to give passport with the pony.Been advised to not pay her anything,because of the lies.The woman has NOT been to see the pony once in the 6 years Ive had her and I havent heard from her in almost 5 1/2 years.Complicated. Whenever ive asked her for the passport,her tune changes and she says shes not the owner and that the loan agreement is void and I should rip it up.She must think Im stupid as if im going to rip the loan agreement up.I DONT THINK SO.
-solicitor says its a valid contract.Woman was trying to pull a fast one.
why should I pay for a pony until I know who the real owner is..

And have you not thought to check that YOU are'nt in possetion of a stolen horse, seeing as how there are so many things wrong with YOUR loan??

 

[The Original Kao]

This post is also running in another thread and I answered in there but you did not reply.

My query is that you say you offered to sell the horse to the loanee, which makes me think that you have no real desire to have this particular horse back.
Did you offer the horse for sale at a fair price?
3 years is a long time to loan a horse and I'm sure that the loanee is very fond of it. My friend had a horse on loan for 7 years, she got him as a barely broken youngster, very green. He's now a well schooled allrounder, and has been successfully shown by my daughter for the past two seasons. His owner got wind of this and told my friend that she wants to sell him and offered him to my friend for a ridiculous sum...a real cheek as it's my friend and my daughter that has turned him into the cracking animal he is today!
It was obvious that his owner was just trying to make a profit from my friend's attachment to the horse

I know that at the end of the day you are the owner and the horse does belong to you..but the loanee must have feelings for this horse and feelings cannot just be switched on and off!
I think you need to take those feelings into consideration and to be honest about your reasons for wanting the horse back if you are to come to any sort of agreement in all this.

Sadly that's the risk you take with loaning. They also got use of a free horse for 7 years so not like they didn't have perks from the loan either

 

[Kate35]

Turn up with a trailer & copies of the contract & let her call the police.

Why don't you just accompany the Loaner to the Police Station because that is where she will end up?

 

[Kate35]

Go and collect him with a trailer and his passport, ideally in the dead of night but if thats not possible go during the day having warned teh police you are going to reclaim your property. Do you really want this owner to have him ?

Susie

I personally am appalled by your comments and those of a number of other users and if I was the Loanee and had read such comments, I would be writing to the the owners of this Forum in the strongest possible terms becaue I don't doubt that they would have caused the Loanee to suffer a certain amount of distress and concern for her property and indeed the welfare of the Horse.

Whilst I have not read all of the Loaner's responses to the questions and comments that have been rasied I am able to read between the lines and see this from the Loanee's point of view.

In the first instance, the "Loaner" claims to have been 16 at the time the Agreement was made. Consequently, if the Loaner signed the agreement and she makes no mention that she didn't, then it would be declared void because the Law of Contract (subject to a few exceptions that I do not consider necessary to go into detail as they are of no concern to this matter) does not provide capacity for minors to enter into legally binding agreements.

At the outset there was a permanent agreement and permanent means just that. Assuming that the Agreement is valid in terms of both the Loaner's and Loanee's capacity, the agreement expressley provided for a term, in particular, that of the Horse's life. The Loaner purports to have provided the Loanee with the option to purchase but from what I have read, this seems to have been entered into at a later date rather than at the time of the orignal Agreement. "We met up, she agreed to buy..."

The Loaner admits that she wasn't in a position to care for the Horse at the time of the Agreement and in her own words admits that the Horse has been very well cared for by the Loanee. Suddenly 3 years down the line and having claimed to have had a "change of circumstances." the Loaner presents the Loanee with an ultimatum; return the Horse or pay a lump sum of money. To me and I don't doubt to any other reasonable thinking individual, the fact that the Loaner has requested money for the sale of Horse indicates that the Loaner isn't interested in that Horse, just a sum of money possibly with a view to purchasing another Horse.

Regardless of whether the option to purchase was entered into at the time of the original agreement or can be deemed to be a collateral agreement, presenteing such an ultimatum when the Agreement by the Loaner's own admission is being satisfactorily performed could be considered to amount to Duress. There is also a question over the actual provisions for the termination of the Agreement and to this end the Agreement appears to be ambiguous in that it provides for the life time of the Horse but includes a Notice Period of 3 months for either Party. Without having sight of the Agreement, one has to assume that the provision to terminate was solely concerned with and intended to protect the welfare of the Horse since the actual Term of the Agreement provided for the Horse's lifetime, such clause would only come into question if the Loanee's care of the Horse fell below the standard required.

Nevertheless but subject to the legal capacity of the Parties the Agreement would still be considered to be valid in terms of law because it includes the basic and essential ingredients that make a Contract legally binding. The one that comes into play here is "Consideration." The "Consideration" in this instance comprises of the Loaner's Offer of the use and enjoyment of her Horse to the Loanee in exchange for the Loanee keeping it at her expense for the duration of the Horse's lifetime. That agreement continues to be performed and the Loaner admits that this is more than satisfactory.

The Loaner admits that there was never a problem with her relationship with the Loanee until she presented the Loanee with that ultimatum and the burning question that I would like to know is how much money did the Loaner request from the Loanee? Was it the the market value of the Horse at the time the Agreement, when the Loaner had no time for the Horse or is the Loaner demanding that the sale price reflects that of a well schooled and cared for Horse. I suspect that it is the latter and this is why the Loanee is quite rightly annoyed and has the support of the other Liveries.

With regard to the tack, there is something called wear and tear, 3 years is a long time and what was the condition of the tack when it was handed over and what did the Agreement provide for it's return or replacement.

Most importantly, at the centre of this is a Horse that has been loved and well cared for by the Loanee and is happy and settled in it's current home of 3 years. What a ridiculous and cruel statement and one that places the Horse's welfare at risk to go and collect the Horse in the middle of the night.

Turning to the Police, this is a civil dispute and one that they will not concern themselves with. However, should the Loaner and her helpers turn up at the Loanee's premises where the animal is kept regardless of the time of night or day they will render themselves liable to criminal proceedings, for Breach of the Peace and possibly Burglary. At the very minimum and in order to obviate rendering themselves liable to such proceedings the Police would require sight of a Court Order that provides for the return of the Horse to the Loaner. Subject to the clauses concerned with the termination of the Agreement, the Loaner may have a right of action in the Civil Court, however I would be very surprised if a Judge would grant any Specific Performance Injunction that provided for the return of the Horse or a sum of money ex parte without first hearing the Loanee's side of the storey and the Loaner has said nothing that would lead me to believe that a Judge would find in her favour under either equitable rules or under the terms of the Agreement.

Isn't this a case of I want another Horse but I don't particularly want that one back but what I will do is try and get some money off the Loanee to buy another Horse? When the Loanee quite rightly refuses, the Loaner then threatens to take the Horse back. Perhaps the Loaner just wants money, maybe another change of circumstances in her life dictate that she needs money. There are of course two sides to the storey but at the end of the day, if someone has agreed to look after another person's Horse for the duration of that Horse's life and that arrangement is performed satisfactory and for the benefit of the Horse, it would be grossly unfair not just to the Horse but to the Loanee to remove the Horse from the Loanee's care.

Finally, I do not know why people reach the conclusion that a Horse Passport is absolute proof of ownership, take it from me, a qualified legal professional that it isn't and on the inside cover of every Horse Passport, there is usually a note to that effect.

 

[Kate35]

Go and collect him with a trailer and his passport, ideally in the dead of night but if thats not possible go during the day having warned teh police you are going to reclaim your property. Do you really want this owner to have him ?

Susie

I personally am appalled by your comments and those of a number of other users and if I was the Loanee and had read such comments, I would be writing to the the owners of this Forum in the strongest possible terms becaue I don't doubt that they would have caused the Loanee to suffer a certain amount of distress and concern.

Whilst I have not read all of the Loaner's responses to the questions and comments that have been rasied I am able to read between the lines and see this from the Loanee's point of view.

In the first instance, the "Loaner" claims to have been 16 at the time the Agreement was made. Consequently, if the Loaner signed the agreement and she makes no mention that she didn't, then it would be declared void because the Law of Contract (subject to a few exceptions that I do not consider necessary to go into detail as they are of no concern to this matter) does not provide capacity for minors to enter into legally binding agreements.

At the outset there was a permanent agreement and permanent means just that. Assuming that the Agreement is valid in terms of both the Loaner's and Loanee's capacity, the agreement expressley provided for a term, in particular, that of the Horse's life. The Loaner purports to have provided the Loanee with the option to purchase but from what I have read, this seems to have been entered into at a later date rather than at the time of the orignal Agreement. "We met up, she agreed to buy..."

The Loaner admits that she wasn't in a position to care for the Horse at the time of the Agreement and in her own words admits that the Horse has been very well cared for by the Loanee. Suddenly 3 years down the line and having claimed to have had a "change of circumstances." the Loaner presents the Loanee with an ultimatum; return the Horse or pay a lump sum of money. To me and I don't doubt to any other reasonable thinking individual, the fact that the Loaner has requested money for the sale of Horse indicates that the Loaner isn't interested in that Horse, just a sum of money possibly with a view to purchasing another Horse.

Regardless of whether the option to purchase was entered into at the time of the original agreement or can be deemed to be a collateral agreement, presenteing such an ultimatum when the Agreement by the Loaner's own admission is being satisfactorily performed could be considered to amount to Duress. There is also a question over the actual provisions for the termination of the Agreement and to this end the Agreement appears to be ambiguous in that it provides for the life time of the Horse but includes a Notice Period of 3 months for either Party. Without having sight of the Agreement, one has to assume that the provision to terminate was solely concerned with and intended to protect the welfare of the Horse since the actual Term of the Agreement provided for the Horse's lifetime, such clause would only come into question if the Loanee's care of the Horse fell below the standard required.

Nevertheless but subject to the legal capacity of the Parties the Agreement would still be considered to be valid in terms of law because it includes the basic and essential ingredients that make a Contract legally binding. The one that comes into play here is "Consideration." The "Consideration" in this instance comprises of the Loaner's Offer of the use and enjoyment of her Horse to the Loanee in exchange for the Loanee keeping it at her expense for the duration of the Horse's lifetime. That agreement continues to be performed and the Loaner admits that this is more than satisfactory.

The Loaner admits that there was never a problem with her relationship with the Loanee until she presented the Loanee with that ultimatum and the burning question that I would like to know is how much money did the Loaner request from the Loanee? Was it the the market value of the Horse at the time the Agreement, when the Loaner had no time for the Horse or is the Loaner demanding that the sale price reflects that of a well schooled and cared for Horse. I suspect that it is the latter and this is why the Loanee is quite rightly annoyed and has the support of the other Liveries.

With regard to the tack, there is something called wear and tear, 3 years is a long time and what was the condition of the tack when it was handed over and what did the Agreement provide for it's return or replacement.

Most importantly, at the centre of this is a Horse that has been loved and well cared for by the Loanee and is happy and settled in it's current home of 3 years. What a ridiculous and cruel statement and one that places the Horse's welfare at risk to go and collect the Horse in the middle of the night.

Turning to the Police, this is a civil dispute and one that they will not concern themselves with. However, should the Loaner and her helpers turn up at the Loanee's premises where the animal is kept regardless of the time of night or day they will render themselves liable to criminal proceedings, for Breach of the Peace and possibly Burglary. At the very minimum and in order to obviate rendering themselves liable to such proceedings the Police would require sight of a Court Order that provides for the return of the Horse to the Loaner. Subject to the clauses concerned with the termination of the Agreement, the Loaner may have a right of action in the Civil Court, however I would be very surprised if a Judge would grant any Specific Performance Injunction that provided for the return of the Horse or a sum of money ex parte without first hearing the Loanee's side of the storey and the Loaner has said nothing that would lead me to believe that a Judge would find in her favour under either equitable rules or under the terms of the Agreement.

Isn't this a case of I want another Horse but I don't particularly want that one back but what I will do is try and get some money off the Loanee to buy another Horse? When the Loanee quite rightly refuses, the Loaner then threatens to take the Horse back. Perhaps the Loaner just wants money, maybe another change of circumstances in her life dictate that she needs money. There are of course two sides to the storey but at the end of the day, if someone has agreed to look after another person's Horse for the duration of that Horse's life and that arrangement is performed satisfactory and for the benefit of the Horse, it would be grossly unfair not just to the Horse but to the Loanee to remove the Horse from the Loanee's care.

Finally, I do not know why people reach the conclusion that a Horse Passport is absolute proof of ownership, take it from me, a qualified legal professional that it isn't and on the inside cover of every Horse Passport, there is usually a note to that effect.

 

[Tinseltoes]

And have you not thought to check that YOU are'nt in possetion of a stolen horse, seeing as how there are so many things wrong with YOUR loan??

Already checked on stolen horse register.The woman told me that she had the ponies in return for owed grazing.

 

[Tinseltoes]

Susie

I personally am appalled by your comments and those of a number of other users and if I was the Loanee and had read such comments, I would be writing to the the owners of this Forum in the strongest possible terms becaue I don't doubt that they would have caused the Loanee to suffer a certain amount of distress and concern.

Whilst I have not read all of the Loaner's responses to the questions and comments that have been rasied I am able to read between the lines and see this from the Loanee's point of view.

In the first instance, the "Loaner" claims to have been 16 at the time the Agreement was made. Consequently, if the Loaner signed the agreement and she makes no mention that she didn't, then it would be declared void because the Law of Contract (subject to a few exceptions that I do not consider necessary to go into detail as they are of no concern to this matter) does not provide capacity for minors to enter into legally binding agreements.

At the outset there was a permanent agreement and permanent means just that. Assuming that the Agreement is valid in terms of both the Loaner's and Loanee's capacity, the agreement expressley provided for a term, in particular, that of the Horse's life. The Loaner purports to have provided the Loanee with the option to purchase but from what I have read, this seems to have been entered into at a later date rather than at the time of the orignal Agreement. "We met up, she agreed to buy..."

The Loaner admits that she wasn't in a position to care for the Horse at the time of the Agreement and in her own words admits that the Horse has been very well cared for by the Loanee. Suddenly 3 years down the line and having claimed to have had a "change of circumstances." the Loaner presents the Loanee with an ultimatum; return the Horse or pay a lump sum of money. To me and I don't doubt to any other reasonable thinking individual, the fact that the Loaner has requested money for the sale of Horse indicates that the Loaner isn't interested in that Horse, just a sum of money possibly with a view to purchasing another Horse.

Regardless of whether the option to purchase was entered into at the time of the original agreement or can be deemed to be a collateral agreement, presenteing such an ultimatum when the Agreement by the Loaner's own admission is being satisfactorily performed could be considered to amount to Duress. There is also a question over the actual provisions for the termination of the Agreement and to this end the Agreement appears to be ambiguous in that it provides for the life time of the Horse but includes a Notice Period of 3 months for either Party. Without having sight of the Agreement, one has to assume that the provision to terminate was solely concerned with and intended to protect the welfare of the Horse since the actual Term of the Agreement provided for the Horse's lifetime, such clause would only come into question if the Loanee's care of the Horse fell below the standard required.

Nevertheless but subject to the legal capacity of the Parties the Agreement would still be considered to be valid in terms of law because it includes the basic and essential ingredients that make a Contract legally binding. The one that comes into play here is "Consideration." The "Consideration" in this instance comprises of the Loaner's Offer of the use and enjoyment of her Horse to the Loanee in exchange for the Loanee keeping it at her expense for the duration of the Horse's lifetime. That agreement continues to be performed and the Loaner admits that this is more than satisfactory.

The Loaner admits that there was never a problem with her relationship with the Loanee until she presented the Loanee with that ultimatum and the burning question that I would like to know is how much money did the Loaner request from the Loanee? Was it the the market value of the Horse at the time the Agreement, when the Loaner had no time for the Horse or is the Loaner demanding that the sale price reflects that of a well schooled and cared for Horse. I suspect that it is the latter and this is why the Loanee is quite rightly annoyed and has the support of the other Liveries.

With regard to the tack, there is something called wear and tear, 3 years is a long time and what was the condition of the tack when it was handed over and what did the Agreement provide for it's return or replacement.

Most importantly, at the centre of this is a Horse that has been loved and well cared for by the Loanee and is happy and settled in it's current home of 3 years. What a ridiculous and cruel statement and one that places the Horse's welfare at risk to go and collect the Horse in the middle of the night.

Turning to the Police, this is a civil dispute and one that they will not concern themselves with. However, should the Loaner and her helpers turn up at the Loanee's premises where the animal is kept regardless of the time of night or day they will render themselves liable to criminal proceedings, for Breach of the Peace and possibly Burglary. At the very minimum and in order to obviate rendering themselves liable to such proceedings the Police would require sight of a Court Order that provides for the return of the Horse to the Loaner. Subject to the clauses concerned with the termination of the Agreement, the Loaner may have a right of action in the Civil Court, however I would be very surprised if a Judge would grant any Specific Performance Injunction that provided for the return of the Horse or a sum of money ex parte without first hearing the Loanee's side of the storey and the Loaner has said nothing that would lead me to believe that a Judge would find in her favour under either equitable rules or under the terms of the Agreement.

Isn't this a case of I want another Horse but I don't particularly want that one back but what I will do is try and get some money off the Loanee to buy another Horse? When the Loanee quite rightly refuses, the Loaner then threatens to take the Horse back. Perhaps the Loaner just wants money, maybe another change of circumstances in her life dictate that she needs money. There are of course two sides to the storey but at the end of the day, if someone has agreed to look after another person's Horse for the duration of that Horse's life and that arrangement is performed satisfactory and for the benefit of the Horse, it would be grossly unfair not just to the Horse but to the Loanee to remove the Horse from the Loanee's care.

Finally, I do not know why people reach the conclusion that a Horse Passport is absolute proof of ownership, take it from me, a qualified legal professional that it isn't and on the inside cover of every Horse Passport, there is usually a note to that effect.

Well said.

 

[ILuvCowparsely]

Personally I think there should be some kind of log book or page within the passport , where there is a area which has to be done from NED which says
" Proof of leagal owner" and then the owners name beside which is signed and printed name , where you have to send proof of owners ship by the way of receipt or photos and stud receipts from mares covering dates .Only then can NED stamp the area where they are satisfied you are the legal owner.

That way if the Lonee has the passport the owners real name and stamp are still there to prove owner ship and they can't dispute . Then if the lonee wants to buy they send the receipt and a letter from the actual owner and then the stamp goes into the new owner bit .

I have one receipt from my mare and one from my pony and my other mare.


the donkey I don't have as bought her from Market in 93 and never thought of receipt my gelding i bred so do have my mares stud receipt.


Something should be done about this or passport means nothing .

 

[Tinseltoes]

Personally I think there should be some kind of log book or page within the passport , where there is a area which has to be done from NED which says
" Proof of leagal owner" and then the owners name beside which is signed and printed name , where you have to send proof of owners ship by the way of receipt or photos and stud receipts from mares covering dates .Only then can NED stamp the area where they are satisfied you are the legal owner.

That way if the Lonee has the passport the owners real name and stamp are still there to prove owner ship and they can't dispute . Then if the lonee wants to buy they send the receipt and a letter from the actual owner and then the stamp goes into the new owner bit .

I have one receipt from my mare and one from my pony and my other mare.


the donkey I don't have as bought her from Market in 93 and never thought of receipt my gelding i bred so do have my mares stud receipt.


Something should be done about this or passport means nothing .

PASSPORT IS NOT proof of ownership as it is now,its for identification only.The only proof of ownership presently I should think would be bill of sale,registration papers.

 

[ILuvCowparsely]

PASSPORT IS NOT proof of ownership as it is now,its for identification only.The only proof of ownership presently I should think would be bill of sale,registration papers.

Jesus. I know read my post

Personally I think there should be some kind of log book or page within the passport , where there is a area which has to be done from NED which says
" Proof of leagal owner" and then the owners name beside which is signed and printed name , where you have to send proof of owners ship by the way of receipt or photos and stud receipts from mares covering dates .Only then can NED stamp the area where they are satisfied you are the legal owner.

i SAID THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING IN THE PASSPORT ( IE NEW THING) WHERE YOU HAVE TO SEND YOU PROOF BY RECEIPT OF PURCHASE OR DOCUMENTS OF BREEDING TO NED.


That way the passport will be proof of ownership "ONLY" IF NED have the Receipts of proof . THEY then stamp your signature which is then a record of you owning horse , its not too hard to understand .

SO IF THERE IS NO STAMP on the proof of ownership. Then that passport is not proof ,but if you have the stamp then it is.

So simplified for you

when you purchase a horse

NED when they stamp the new owner they need a copy of the sales receipt before they stamp it and send it back.

 

[Cuffey]

Why not (as Rollin recommends) use the Haras system, whereby ownership documents remain with the owner, the passport with the horse and no horse can be sold without the ownership document.

Quote from
http://www.eaap.org/Previous_Annual...apers/H1.4_Horse identification in France.pdf

''The Haras Nationaux are responsible for horse identification. They have created a national
and central database “SIRE” where is registered all the information about identification, stud books and genetic indexes.
SIRE issues a passport for each horse, including Universal Equine Life Number,
identification, pedigree, stud book registration and all other EC regulations items. The
ownership card is issued on a separate form and re-issued at every ownership change ; so the passport remains always with the horse.''

This works well as passports are issued by one PIO
UK allowed far too many organisations to issue passports and our system simply does not work--open to abuse and forgery.

 

[Tinseltoes]

Jesus. I know read my post


i SAID THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING IN THE PASSPORT ( IE NEW THING) WHERE YOU HAVE TO SEND YOU PROOF BY RECEIPT OF PURCHASE OR DOCUMENTS OF BREEDING TO NED.


That way the passport will be proof of ownership "ONLY" IF NED have the Receipts of proof . THEY then stamp your signature which is then a record of you owning horse , its not too hard to understand .

SO IF THERE IS NO STAMP on the proof of ownership. Then that passport is not proof ,but if you have the stamp then it is.

So simplified for you

when you purchase a horse

NED when they stamp the new owner they need a copy of the sales receipt before they stamp it and send it back.

Why not (as Rollin recommends) use the Haras system, whereby ownership documents remain with the owner, the passport with the horse and no horse can be sold without the ownership document.

Quote from
http://www.eaap.org/Previous_Annual...apers/H1.4_Horse identification in France.pdf

''The Haras Nationaux are responsible for horse identification. They have created a national
and central database “SIRE” where is registered all the information about identification, stud books and genetic indexes.
SIRE issues a passport for each horse, including Universal Equine Life Number,
identification, pedigree, stud book registration and all other EC regulations items. The
ownership card is issued on a separate form and re-issued at every ownership change ; so the passport remains always with the horse.''

This works well as passports are issued by one PIO
UK allowed far too many organisations to issue passports and our system simply does not work--open to abuse and forgery.

I think both ideas are good. French system would work better I think.

 

[ILuvCowparsely]

Why not (as Rollin recommends) use the Haras system, whereby ownership documents remain with the owner, the passport with the horse and no horse can be sold without the ownership document.

Even better idea .

I know i bought my pony with her son who I bought from a friend. The b/f kept the pony and got a duplicate made ( I never got the pony's son )

Maybe before they issue a duplicate passport they should request proof of ownership also maybe by the fore mention idea , that way no one can get duplicates unless they are the actual owner, instead of jo blogs who stole pony last week saying he lost his and getting another.