Owner decided to sell to someone else after vetting

[ester]

how bizarre to agree to get the horse reshod pre vetting and then take it's shoes off and expect it to be fine!?

 

[Munchkin789]

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.

No we wouldn't have bought if it failed with shoes on. I suppose with the horse being only 5 if it has problems at this stage then it wouldn't be good long term.

 

[Elsiecat]

how bizarre to agree to get the horse reshod pre vetting and then take it's shoes off and expect it to be fine!?

I can't help wondering whether the horse came in lame prior to the vetting and the seller decided to take shoes off and create a 'reason' for the horse being lame..

 

[mandwhy]

I would be livid too! However I think you have had a lucky escape. I would try my best to get the money back though.

 

[onemoretime]

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.

Agree with this. That is not a nice way to treat a prospective purchaser. I think you are best off without this horse and the seller sounds very dodgy. Keep looking there are some nice horses and sellers our there.

 

[onemoretime]

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.

Its certainly worth a try.

 

[Meandtheboys]

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?

1st post.............were you the owner!!