Mid-sold pony PLEASE HELP!

[splashgirl45]

agree TPO we dont know exactly what was said and who said it but the bottom line is the buyer didnt have a professional opinion on the pony but bought it anyway...

 

[Pinkvboots]

I think you took a risk buying the pony after the seller mentioned the failed vetting and stiffness, I think a lot of buyers would have at least had a vetting done after hearing that but you didn't, thing is being stiff sometimes is fine after a walk about horse looks better and never changes but sometimes stiff can turn into lame that can happen overnight, you basically will have to prove otherwise.

I think if you like the pony get some nerve blocks done and see how you go it's not thousands of pounds, it might be easily treated and your kids will hopefully have a nice pony.

Then learn from this and don't take unnecessary risks.

 

[TPO]

In that scenario, OP does not have a leg to stand on. And she would not be able to prove the sellers knowingly mis-described the pony, because they didn't.
But other scenarios are also just as possible. And in my jaded, cynical view, rather more likely. Though putting ads up with the lameness evident rather point to them being unaware rater than deliberately dishonest.

But that's what lawyers and evidence is for. We are all just guessing!

But according to OP the seller disnt intentionally mislead them.

Buyer viewed and tried horse, saw videos and decided not to vet after being told that it had failed a vetting previously.

Seller is a pretty rubbish crook to be telling potential buyers about failed vettings and potential stiffness/lameness.

There are plenty of videos on here over the years and horses out and about competing who aren't sound. So while soundness is a black and white thing to me (with a hint of grey for "fit for function") others either don't know or dont care. I'd hedge my bets that that majority are the former and it's ignorance. It plausible that the people who think that their horses are sound would advertise/sell them as sound.

Obviously there has to be buyer protection but at what stage do adults take responsibility for their own decisions? Based on the (frequent) threads on here all of the "mis-sold" cases stem from not being experienced enough to buy alone or willing to accept the consequences. These cases havent vetted or gotten the necessary paperwork (e.g. height certificates) and yet the seller is to blame.

I mean I know that I've bleated on about this for years but horses are just too easy to get. Again look at the threads on here with basic questions AFTER people have bought (rescued/saved ?) horses (wild/feral/unhandled ?).

It's the basics of buying to take someone experienced and vet when you arent vastly experienced and/or willing to take a hit if it does wrong.

Not aimed at AE. Just all seller seem to take a kicking and there are a lot of questionable buyers out there

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

To be frank - these days of litigation and dodgy sellers, unless you are very, very experienced I would not buy a horse under any circumstances that you have not had vetted by a vet of your choice. Unless of course you are buying for peanuts and prepared to risk the financial loss, never mind the heartbreak of possibly buying a walking vet's bill, or even worse case scenario having to PTS.

And don't ever fall for the old line ..'it has a current 5 stage vet cert'...no need to vet it again', this seems fairly common now on ads. There is always a need to vet it again by your own choice of vet, any existing vet cert is only applicable for the day it was done and vetted fit for whatever previous vetting's client wanted to do with the horse. An old cert done before the latest purchase cannot and does not carry any weight in a sale at a later date or any litigation that might ensue at a later date relating to that horse.

 

[Pinkvboots]

Spotting lameness or niggles isn't always easy some people vets or otherwise just have an eye for it a lot don't though.

 

[Patterdale]

There are many sellers out there who have no idea their horses are lame and merrily send out videos of said crocked horse. Modern technology has saved me hundreds in fuel to viewings..!

 

[Ambers Echo]

But according to OP the seller disnt intentionally mislead them.

Not aimed at AE. Just all seller seem to take a kicking and there are a lot of questionable buyers out there

I totally get that and agree there are naive buyers. And this may totally be the buyers fault. Sellers may have been totally unaware. But there are also plenty of deliberately dishonest sellers. I think it is good that the burden of proof is on a buyer and a seller does not have to be accurate. They just have to not actively deceive a buyer. So it's a high burden of proof. But if that is the case here then I think the sellers should be forced to have the pony back and do right by him not pass him on.

 

[ycbm]

Obviously there has to be buyer protection but at what stage do adults take responsibility for their own decisions?

I'd say that certainly begins on hearing the words "he failed a vetting last week but .... " if not before.

 

[Ambers Echo]

I'd say that certainly begins on hearing the words "he failed a vetting last week but .... " if not before.

Pretty much how I started my conversations about Jenny! Though I did have a vet letter and x-rays so I had taken quite a lot of care to not make assumptions.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

It really doesn't sound to me as if the pony was mis-sold.

 

[luckyoldme]

Hi op.
I just thought I would let you know you are not the only person to make a mistake like this.
If I had googled the name of the dealer I bought my horse off I would never have gone anywhere near.
Pretty early on I gave up the idea of getting my money back. The horse nowhere near as he described and his passport was a fairy tale.
I also realised that out of the three parties in this transaction the horse was the only blameless one.
I had a rough time with my horse but we got there in the end. He was a lot older than I thought but I only wanted a happy hack. At first he was a very unhappy hacker but in time we got the measure of each other.
I had made up my mind that if he didn't come good the best thing was to pts.
It's a hard lesson to learn but for me it worked out just fine.
Evan if you are entitled to a refund it takes forever to get the money...it might be that you have to just take the hit and do what's right for the pony.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

I totally get that and agree there are naive buyers. And this may totally be the buyers fault. Sellers may have been totally unaware. But there are also plenty of deliberately dishonest sellers. I think it is good that the burden of proof is on a buyer and a seller does not have to be accurate. They just have to not actively deceive a buyer. So it's a high burden of proof. But if that is the case here then I think the sellers should be forced to have the pony back and do right by him not pass him on.

But they told the buyer that the pony was NOT sound and the buyer went ahead and bought it the pony, why on earth should the seller take it back?

 

[shortstuff99]

But they told the buyer that the pony was NOT sound and the buyer went ahead and bought it the pony, why on earth should the seller take it back?

I don't think they did though, they said the horse was fine just a bit stiff from being out of work. If you were new to buying you wouldn't think that meant lame.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

I don't think they did though, they said the horse was fine just a bit stiff from being out of work. If you were new to buying you wouldn't think that meant lame.

They told the buyer it had recently failed a vetting!

 

[Wishfilly]

She is not advertising as a dealer but from speaking to other horsey folk she is known to buy projects to sell on. ??‍
No I didn’t notice the muscle wastage or subtle lameness when I viewed her, only when the vet pointed them out. I wouldn’t have bought an obviously lame pony. They are experienced horse people with a large private yard, her sons compete regularly, I would have expected them to know if something was wrong. I have screenshots of her stating the pony wasn’t lame when I bought her. I also have a video she sent to me of her son riding the pony which I’ve shown to other experienced people and they have said they can notice it.
I tried to get a copy of the failed vet report but they said it was under the other potential buyers name, not on the pony’s records so I couldn’t access it as I didn’t pay for it ??‍

Whether or not she advertises as a dealer, she may be classed as one. It may depend on how many projects, how quickly she sells on, how she makes most of her money, etc, and it may be difficult to prove. If, for example, she buys a pony, her sons compete it for a season or two, then they sell it to fund the next pony up, that would probably not be a dealer.

If she is a dealer, I believe you have more rights and can return the horse as not fit for purpose. But proving whether someone is a dealer or not is tricky in itself, so again, you will need specialist legal advice.

I do think you have been a bit naive- presumably, you bought the pony at a reduced price, because it would not pass a vet? So you knew there was some level of risk involved.

I do think if the sellers have set out to truly mislead you, they have done a pretty poor job (sending you a video of a lame pony, disclosing the failed vet). Some people do regularly compete lame/stiff/unlevel horses- if the horse is getting results, then they will assume it's fine. So competing doesn't necessarily mean they will have noticed subtle lameness. I agree some internet stalking may help figure out what is going on.

But ultimately, as others have said, to have any chance of pursuing this, you will need specialist legal advice.

 

[shortstuff99]

They told the buyer it had recently failed a vetting!

Doesn't mean lame though. There is plenty of stuff online currently about how this famous horse failed a vet and that famous horse failed a vet. How they're just a snapshot, how they don't mean much. You could easily get misled into not thinking it's a big deal.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

Doesn't mean lame though. There is plenty of stuff online currently about how this famous horse failed a vet and that famous horse failed a vet. How they're just a snapshot, how they don't mean much. You could easily get misled into not thinking it's a big deal.

Well it had failed a vetting and was stiff, showed up lame on a video. How upfront do you want the seller to be? Some people don't seem to be fit to be let out on their own, tbh.

 

[shortstuff99]

Well it had failed a vetting and was stiff, showed up lame on a video. How upfront do you want the seller to be? Some people don't seem to be fit to be let out on their own, tbh.

I'm not a legal bod so I can't tell you. Just musing on what the buyer could claim.

I'm my mind if you know a horse is lame you should say it is lame. Otherwise there is a chance it could come back to haunt you. I know what you are saying, but if the buyer can claim there was some sort of deception (even if it is just using slightly different language) then there could be a case.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

How can the buyer claim there was some sort of deception? The buyer tried the horse, had the opportunity to watch a video which showed it was lame, was told it was stiff and had recently failed a vetting - where on earth is the deception there? Then the buyer chose not to have their own vetting done. The pony was definitely not mis-sold imho.

By the way a dealer sells 3 horses in a year.


ETA, the OP would do better to spend her money on a vet for the pony than waste it on legal advice, imv

 

[shortstuff99]

How can the buyer claim there was some sort of deception? The buyer tried the horse, had the opportunity to watch a video which showed it was lame, was told it was stiff and had recently failed a vetting - where on earth is the deception there? Then the buyer chose not to have their own vetting done. The pony was definitely not mis-sold imho.

By the way a dealer sells 3 horses in a year.

The rules, I believe, for a dealer now is sells horses in the course of business doesn't have to be a set number.

I think there could be a chance of a comeback because the buyer believed they were buying a sound horse and the buyer did not dissuade them of that notion (if true)!

Whether I agree with that or not is immaterial, it is what the law agrees is the issue.

 

[Wishfilly]

By the way a dealer sells 3 horses in a year.

I know people often say this, but I am almost 100% sure this is not actually a legal definition, and the legalities are far more complex than this. There are circumstances where the legislation that applies to dealers would apply to someone selling less than 3 horses a year, and also circumstances where someone who has sold more than three horses might not be considered a dealer.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

I know people often say this, but I am almost 100% sure this is not actually a legal definition, and the legalities are far more complex than this. There are circumstances where the legislation that applies to dealers would apply to someone selling less than 3 horses a year, and also circumstances where someone who has sold more than three horses might not be considered a dealer.

Well someone who earns their living from equestrianism, such as a RS owner would only need to sell one horse to be considered to be a dealer but for someone who doesn't earn their living through horses, 3 is, I believe the number of horses sold to be considered to be dealing. OP said this seller takes on projects and sells them, unless she takes on 3 per year she is unlikely to be considered to be a dealer.

 

[Wishfilly]

Well someone who earns their living from equestrianism, such as a RS owner would only need to sell one horse to be considered to be a dealer but for someone who doesn't earn their living through horses, 3 is, I believe the number of horses sold to be considered to be dealing. OP said this seller takes on projects and sells them, unless she takes on 3 per year she is unlikely to be considered to be a dealer.

I don't believe the number 3 is actually in law anywhere, and there are circumstances, I believe, where selling 3 horses in a year would not make you a dealer (e.g. if you had multiple children who had all outgrown their ponies in the same year and sold 3 as a one off, I don't believe that makes you legally a dealer or equally a leisure rider who owns multiple horses deciding to give up and sell up).

If the seller (or their children) are not professionals, and their income mainly comes from a non horse related source, and they are not making profit on the sales, I don't think the number of sales is necessarily relevant. It may be hard to prove, and I believe specialist legal advice needs to be taken.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

I don't believe the number 3 is actually in law anywhere, and there are circumstances, I believe, where selling 3 horses in a year would not make you a dealer (e.g. if you had multiple children who had all outgrown their ponies in the same year and sold 3 as a one off, I don't believe that makes you legally a dealer or equally a leisure rider who owns multiple horses deciding to give up and sell up).

If the seller (or their children) are not professionals, and their income mainly comes from a non horse related source, and they are not making profit on the sales, I don't think the number of sales is necessarily relevant. It may be hard to prove, and I believe specialist legal advice needs to be taken.

In this case I don't believe it matters anyway as the pony was not mis-sold.

 

[neddy man]

Was/is the sellers name on the passport, how long have they owned it, have you contacted the previous owner to her owner?

 

[Wishfilly]

In this case I don't believe it matters anyway as the pony was not mis-sold.

If the horse is not fit for purpose, a trade seller can be liable for a fault that existed before sale, even if they were not aware of it. It's obviously not straightforward, which is why OP should take legal advice.

 

[SO1]

It was a risky buy knowing the pony had failed the vet and been out of work. Did they say why the pony had time off.

An unfit pony is more likely to get injured if it has not been bought back into work properly. If the pony was unfit but was worked hard at the viewings or the son just got back on and started riding without doing a proper fitting program then the risk of a soft tissue or other injury is higher than if they took their time to gradually get the pony fit again.

How old is the pony? What have you done with in the days you have had it before it went lame?

I think you need to find out from the vet what the problem is and for him to do a letter to say it was a pre existing condition. How long had they had the pony as if they had not had it long and it was bought to sell on they may not have know about previous injuries. Is it their name in the passport?

 

[Flyermc]

OP afew questions

How old is the pony?
How long had the previous owners had the pony for?
What does the vet think is wrong with the pony? (it could just be something or nothing, like a foot abscess)
You have mentioned muscle wastage, but were on the leg/body? (is this related to the issue or could this just be down to a poor fitting saddle, or just the age of the pony?)
You have mentioned that the vet thinks its a pre-existing issue, are they prepared to put this in writing?
How much did you pay for the pony? m not being nosy, but im wonder if the price was 'reflective' of a horse not passing a vetting

I wouldnt bother going back to the seller, they have made there intentions clear. i would start a small claims case, write everything down on a clear timeline, add any evidence (photo's, video, vet report) and let the courts decide on the outcome if the seller still refuses. Depending on the value of the horse, its not expensive to make a claim and if you win, the costs are also recovered.

Im not sure where you stand legally. You did knowingly buy a horse that has failed a vetting with a 'stiff leg' so in theory not sound? and you are now only looking back on videos that you was previously happy with, looking for signs of lameness (hindsight!!)

 

[Widgeon]

ETA, the OP would do better to spend her money on a vet for the pony than waste it on legal advice, imv

In my limited experience I would also agree with this. Unless it's a very high value animal trying to get legal advice is very expensive and very stressful. If you think you have a clear cut case then small claims would maybe be worth a go, but if not I'd write off the purchase price and see if you can get the pony right. (You don't have to agree with me, just be wary of throwing good money after iffy money!)

 

[Nudibranch]

I just can't see how the OP has a leg to stand on. The pony failed a vetting, the OP didn't get one herself and it has muscle wastage. Was that not spotted at the viewing? Buyers have some responsibility as well as sellers.
The BHS have recently published "reminder" advice about buying unseen, not getting a vetting, etc, as they are being deluged with similar queries. To be honest I think trying to take action in this case would be as bad, or worse, than being a dodgy seller.