Owner decided to sell to someone else after vetting

[Munchkin789]

After searching and traveling miles to find the correct young horse, we arranged a vetting. As the horses shoes needed done the owner said to arrange the vetting for the following thursday( viewed the horse the previous tue-1week 2 days later), which I did. Then the farrier suposibly didn't turn up so the shoeing and vetting was put off till Friday. On the vetting on the Friday afternoon the vet rings to say the horse will not pass a 2stage vetting and is foot sore on 10meter circle on hard ground, which could be likely due to having it's shoes taken off( don't know why she did this). Then I ring her up over weekend which she takes forever to reply to as don't want to pull out as already spent 125 on vetting. I asked if she would put shoes back on and get it revetted, she agreed. Then a day later she rings to say she is selling to someone else on the yard. What the hell....I've wasted £125!!!! Also she said the reason for not re-shoeing was due to expense. But when I viewed the horse she said it had been out of work for a few months but had shoes on when I viewed it, so in that case the shoes must have been on while the horse was turned away!!!! Is there any way to get the money back???

 

[Doormouse]

Sadly I doubt it. Do feel for you, sounds all a bit strange really, taking shoes off just before a vetting? Perhaps you are better off without this one.

 

[jrp204]

Better to lose £125 than potentially end up with a dud.

 

[Munchkin789]

I guess it was for the best, but shame £125 had to be lost in the process

 

[Summer pudding]

I guess it was for the best, but shame £125 had to be lost in the process

It did sound a bit dodgy..and perhaps for the best sadly.

 

[Goldenstar]

The vetting did it's job .
The horse was lame she chose to sell it to someone who did not mind .
The right horse is still out there you just need to find it .

 

[smellsofhorse]

Unfortunately I doubt you can get that money back , but it sounds dodgy and I think you have avoided more problems.

 

[Elsiecat]

Sounds like £125 well spent to me!

 

[AmyMay]

Sounds like £125 well spent to me!

This.

 

[Fun Times]

Yep, I agree with the others. I suspect that £125 has saved you more money and perhaps heart ache. If it helps, I once paid a lot more for a five stage vetting and the horse barely made it past the first five minutes of inspection. It was put to sleep the next day.

 

[Shysmum]

yup count your chickens (well pounds...) - you are well out of there. Lameness is not a shoeing issue imho.

 

[9tails]

Sounds like £125 well spent to me!

This with bells on. The vetting saved you throwing your money away.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

Sounds like £125 well spent to me!

Indeed!

 

[Tnavas]

If it were me I'd be looking at that money as being well spent. It failed the very basic of vet checks. You've saved yourself a future fortune.

 

[fawaz]

If you wanted the owner of the horse to hold it for you exclusively then maybe you should have paid a deposit?
The owner is trying to sell the horse and if they don't wish to put shoes on it for you they don't have to and can sell it to whoever is interested. Just because you had a vet check done doesn't mean you have priority or the right to make the owner put shoes on it.

Personally I consider vet checks to be part of the expenses of buying a horse, just like the cost of fuel for going to look at a potential horse or paying an experienced rider to come look with you. You don't demand the owner of the horse pay those costs?

 

[Dry Rot]

If you wanted the owner of the horse to hold it for you exclusively then maybe you should have paid a deposit?
The owner is trying to sell the horse and if they don't wish to put shoes on it for you they don't have to and can sell it to whoever is interested. Just because you had a vet check done doesn't mean you have priority or the right to make the owner put shoes on it.

Personally I consider vet checks to be part of the expenses of buying a horse, just like the cost of fuel for going to look at a potential horse or paying an experienced rider to come look with you. You don't demand the owner of the horse pay those costs?

Sorry, OP, but fawaz took the words right out of my mouth. If there was any contract, you altered the terms by unilaterally attempting to impose new conditions. Buying and selling is like a game of poker. It is more art than science and there are elements of bluff and counter bluff. Your best defence is to learn how to play the game. The law is there to ensure that both sides stick to the rules. But it is still a game and winning requires an element of skill and knowledge. Don't be a bad loser.

 

[Zero00000]

Even if she didn't sell the horse, it failed, I assume you would not have bought the horse anyway, so you are no worse off.. Good luck in your horse search.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

If the OP had paid a deposit, she'll have been even more out of pocket than she is now. Basically, she was dealing with someone with no scruples. We all know the game- if have a vetting done, the seller doesn't then go and sell the horse from under you, unless they're a crook.

OP, you did have a lucky escape from this woman, shame the horse didn't too.
You could try to recoup your losses with a solicitors letter to scare her into action, but if even her farrier doesn't trust her to pay a shoeing bill, then, your chances are even less.

Good luck with finding another horse, not all sellers are dishonest. Just some.

 

[Kaylum]

She is a time and money waster. You go to see the horse with shoes on and it's vetted without shoes. I bet it's not even been sold but she has panicked. Money back please as it was not presented to the vet in the condition you saw it. Be firm about it and get the vetting fee back.

 

[WindyStacks]

Finding the right horse costs money. And that is just the start of digging deep...

This horse failed a 2 stage - that doesn't bode well at all - as someone else pointed out, very unlikely to pass with the addition of shoes. Would you have bought the horse had it failed a subsequent vetting?

IMO this seller knew shoes wouldn't bring the horse sound, knew the next vetting would fail and simply sold to the first person who came along not asking too many questions/vetting.

In years to come you WILL see this as money very well spent as you will have saved yourself a fortune.

Fwiw 125 is well within "1 week's livery" - given you're now a week in - you're even.

 

[Fides]

We could well be seeing a thread soon "I bought a horse off a friend that I trusted, without a vetting and now I have a horse I can't ride"

Lucky escape

 

[Tapir]

someone did this to me a few years ago, except the horse had passed the vetting. I'd arranged transport and readied the stable. I even got a phone call from her saying how pleased she was that her horse was going to such a lovely home. Then I got a call to say she'd changed her mind and wasn't selling as she couldn't face it - she couldn't understand why I wasn't happy, having just spent nearly £200 on a vetting. The vet then called me to suggest we sold the vetting cert to the new purchaser(!) who'd also contacted him for a vetting on the same horse. He had been told that we'd backed out and didn't want to waste his time doing a second vetting on the same horse within a week!

The vet suggested that we might have a case against her but I decided that I didn't want to deal with the vendor any further and agreed to sell the vet cert to the other purchasers so I wasn't totally out of pocket. It amazes me, and shouldn't really, how people will absolutely just lie to your face.

 

[niagaraduval]

Totally agree with others, however if it is just the fact that the woman as decided to un shoe the horse, than I would be very upset. After all the traveling and arranging the vetting and paying for it for her to sell to someone else.. not very respectful.

Although it does sound as though it is money well spent, what it the horse had passed the vetting and she had sold it to someone else anyway.

OP - You are very right to be upset ! I would be livid.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

yup count your chickens (well pounds...) - you are well out of there. Lameness is not a shoeing issue imho.

Finding the right horse costs money. And that is just the start of digging deep...

This horse failed a 2 stage - that doesn't bode well at all - as someone else pointed out, very unlikely to pass with the addition of shoes. Would you have bought the horse had it failed a subsequent vetting?

IMO this seller knew shoes wouldn't bring the horse sound, knew the next vetting would fail ....

I doubt many horses would pass a vetting the day after the shoes were removed.

 

[Kaylum]

I doubt many horses would pass a vetting the day after the shoes were removed.

Exactly especially if she had removed them herself? Get your money back the horse was presented incorrectly at the vetting.

As for £125 being a week's livery. Glad people have money to waste, which is what has happend here.

 

[fatpiggy]

It definitely sounds like a lucky escape. Surely though, given that buying a horse costs thousands, and that is just for the horse, never mind tack, rugs, transport etc. £125 is a drop in the ocean. No-one likes to waste money, but in this case, I don't think it was wasted. A disappointed OP of course and I understand that.

 

[Equi]

Put it this way, if you had got another a full vetting and it failed, would you have bought the horse anyway? if not then you would have wasted the money anyway. I think this has been a lucky escape.

 

[FestiveFuzz]

I suspect she sold to someone else as she didn't think the horse would pass the 2 stage vetting even with shoes on. I can understand your frustration at losing £125 but it sounds like you're better off without this horse. The right one for you will be out there somewhere.

 

[WindyStacks]

I didn't say 125 is a week's livery, but all the things we buy certainly add up. So far this week I've had a lesson (20), livery (92), hoof boots (94) and need a salt lick and fly spray - probably another 20. There's always something!

 

[Honey08]

I think that the owner was not very fair to you, whether a deposit was left or not. Perhaps she thought that the horse would fail again and was worried, hence jumped at the chance of selling it to someone without a vetting.