New BBC ONE show THE LEGALIZER

T

thelegalizer

New User
Joined
20 January 2012
Messages
1
Visit site
The Legalizer is BBC 1 consumer rights show that is presented by a highly qualified criminal barrister who uses his legal knowledge to show citizens who feel cheated, ripped off or unjustly treated that they are not helpless and can resolve things for themselves, using the law if necessary, often via the Small Claims Court.
I would be very interested to hear from anyone on the forum who has had an issue related to their sport. For instance a recurring issue with a service provider or rogue traders (i.e. like a bad trailer repair centre) or arguments over rights of access, miss sold animals, anything in fact that has left them feeling ill treated and in need of redress.

Some more info below...

NEW BBC ONE SERIES


• Do you feel you’ve been cheated, ripped off or unable to solve a dispute?

• Have you tried every means of resolving the problem but without success?

• Are you now considering using the Small Claims Court?

Fulcrum TV is looking for people to take part in a new BBC ONE series that aims to show consumers that they have rights and can get justice for themselves by guiding them through the Small Claims Court process.
If you or someone you know is thinking about a Small Claims Court action then get in touch.

Contact thelegalizer@fulcrumtv.com or 02033728521/02033728522
 
I think you might be swamped! Mis-selling by dodgy (and even 'reputable') dealers is absolutely rife! The difficulties for people who've bought a 'bad' or unsound horse are that they are usually novices, and don't have an experienced person able to quickly help them sort out whether the horse HAS been mis-sold - or whether he's just having difficulty settling into a new home. Time passes - if they scream loud enough at the dealer, he'll probably offer an exchange (usually asking more money 'because it's a better horse') and the exchange horse will be JUST as dodgy!

Then they tend to go to Trading Standards - who can take 12 months or more to bring a case to court - and if the prosecution succeeds, you'd think the buyer would have a strong case. So another 6 months goes by getting the case to court (a T/S prosecution DOESN'T compensate the buyer) - and - guess what - the dealer claims poverty, no assets, etc etc etc. So 18 months on, the buyer still has a horse they can't ride - can't afford to buy or keep another ...... And the dealer keeps on dealing!

Or, the buyer sells the horse at a loss and gives up! Or the buyer is in hospital for months. The possibilities are endless!
 
Rogue Dealers are the biggest problem. There is no governing body or any means of identifying crooks or scammers other than social media avenues. Very few people go to the lengths of Trading Standards as they are ofter just relieved and worn out to have some small compensation from the trader or give up totally as its a futile waste of time.

These rogue dealers are also from within the main 3 disciplines so not even affiliation to BS. BD or BE is a kitemark of professionalism.

These people need to be gotton rid of to help all the genuine dealers out there who do a fabulous job but suffer from a poor image by association.
 
As an equine lawyer I see lots of "mis-selling" of horses. I also see lots of "mis-buying". Horses are sensitive creatures. Often a change of management, rider, environment and lifestyle can cause problems - or reveal problems which were already there but not actually an issue in their previous home. People often simply buy unsuitable horses. It is of course equally true that some people (and they are certainly not always dealers) are happy to sell their problems on and will deliberately pass on a lame horse to a less experienced buyer. I am intrigued to know how it is proposed that such people be "gotten rid of"?? A well clued-up buyer who is prepared to: pay the right price for a horse, have it vetted before buying and insist on trying the horse out properly in adequate facilities is far less likely to be had. Caveat emptor will always be the rule!
 
So what you are implying then is that if you are not a seasoned horse buyer knowing the ropes you should / could be to blame for being naive if it goes wrong.

I totally agree that buyers often take on more horse than they can cope with or don't give the horse a chance to settle or behave like a horse but those areas are ambiguous and hard to prove.

I'm talking about cases where the horse is clearly unfit for purpose or not as described ie 16 not 7 etc etc.

I think its a great shame the onus in your view is on the buyer to beware and be careful. A register of good dealers would be perfect to help weedle out those less scrupulous who put profit before anything else.

Its been said before but people buy things all the time without being specialists, cars , washing machines, houses etc etc and all these industries have a form of comeback if there's a problem.

What a shame those who enter the murky world of horses sales do so at their own peril. Not the way to encourage more ownership.

You only have to read the tales of horror and heartache on here to see the fall out of bad / rogue dealers.
 
Yes, it is a poor reflection on the horse world. But horses are such a tricky purchase. The items you mention do have some comeback built in but it is usually in the form of a manufacturer's or seller's warrantly. Of course even horse dealers are obliged to give a warranty of satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and correspondence with description and the usual consumer protection measures apply, for what they're worth. The real difficulty lies in the nature of horses and horse sales. I am not being dismissive and I am as familiar with the heartache of these cases as anyone. I just don't see how you can identify "rogue dealers" if, as you say, Trading Standards are not tough enough. Perhaps H&H would like to start a "rogues gallery" (and watch the defamation claims flood in ... Hey, Editor?)
 
I agree "caveat emptor" is a good rule of thumb and recognise there are plenty of buyers who have no concept of their ability and experience in relation to the horse(s) they may be trying out.However,dealers should have a responsibility to ensure novice purchasers are sold a horse suitablr for their needs and level of ability.It should be quite apparant to dealers whether they are dealing with a novice or not.Consequently i still feel dealers have some accountability when they sell horses.
 
Well, yes, as I said in my last post, horse dealers do have accountability in law. If the buyer wants to go to the small claims court s/he has that option. If s/he can demonstrate that the horse was not of satisfactory quality, not fit for the purpose for which they bought it or not as described, s/he can get compensation or the money back. There are of course certain legitimate defences available to the honest dealer, as you would expect. Anyone can report "rogue dealers" to Trading Standards - my problem is with your suggestion that there could be some other possible way of "getting rid" of them. That is, with respect, a nice thought but simply unrealistic - the better approach is to educate buyers before they lose their shirt. The good advice is out there but, sadly, in the world of horse purchasing, most of us learn by (expensive) experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top