owner/loaner rights

I have a horse on permanent loan, I am very happy for his owner to visit as often as she likes (as long as I am able to be there!) She has ridden him while I had him on loan, but she asked as a favour and did not 'expect' to do so

Apologies for specifically answering your replies HashRouge, but why ever do you think it is OK for the owner to ride the horse while it is on loan? A loan agreement (in my view) hands the responsibility for care, upkeep and exercise of the horse over the the loaner or specified others. It doesn't usually give the option for the owner to come along for a joy ride without being required to pay for any maintenance costs?

As an example, I couldn't see most owners agreeing to (for example) a friend turning up to ride their horse free of charge when they (the friend) felt like it?
 
Surely it depends on what the contract says? If there is no mention of the owner riding the horse in the contract then it is very much at the loaner's discretion and convenience, if at all. If the contract specifies that the owner may ride the horse, it should state the frequency of those rides. In that case the loaner should try to accommodate the owner. If either party is unhappy about the arrangement, the loan may come to an end.
 
You are loaning not owning, and the owner retains full rights, unless they have specifically said otherwise.

Quote from BHs sample loan agreement, which is a good start that you can adapt to your circumstances.
1.2 The agreement shall in no circumstances be interpreted or construed as an agreement for permanent transfer or any other purpose.
1.3 It is agreed that that at no time is the Borrower the registered owner of the Horse and is not permitted to loan, lease or sell the Horse to any third parties.
1.4 The loan shall commence on [enter start] and end on [end dates] (the Period).
1.5 On the agreement of both parties the Period may be extended or renewed for a further period of time.
1.6 The Owner shall have absolute discretion to sell the Horse on whatever terms he/she sees fit without the agreement of or consultation with the Borrower, although this agreement must first be terminated.
4.1.7. allow the Owner reasonable access to the Horse at the address specified above at any reasonable time;

If I travelled a 150 miles and was not allowed access to my horse, and if I thought I needed to ride to asses whether was being cared for to my satisfaction, as far as I am concerned as the owner, wanting to ride my horse, that is my right. I wouldn't matter how good a rider the loaner thought they were and how badly they thought I rode.
I have also had a horse on permanent loan, and would not have dreamed of preventing the owner from riding him.
I now understand the thinking behind people who have ignored my loan agreement instructions, even though they have read it, agreed to it and signed it.
 
If you rented a house would you be happy for the owner to stay overnight when ever they were in town? After all it is thier house!

When renting i was happy enough with the periodic inspections which were arranged at a mutually convenient time but i would not have been happy with the owner demanding to stay the night, let alone on short notice when not convenient to myself and definitely not if it wasnt discussed up front.

As i said, my current loan has a clause about owner riding at inspections but it was discussed up front and will be when convenient to both of us.
 
honetpot said:
You are loaning not owning, and the owner retains full rights, unless they have specifically said otherwise.

Quote from BHs sample loan agreement, which is a good start that you can adapt to your circumstances.
1.2 The agreement shall in no circumstances be interpreted or construed as an agreement for permanent transfer or any other purpose.
1.3 It is agreed that that at no time is the Borrower the registered owner of the Horse and is not permitted to loan, lease or sell the Horse to any third parties.
1.4 The loan shall commence on [enter start] and end on [end dates] (the Period).
1.5 On the agreement of both parties the Period may be extended or renewed for a further period of time.
1.6 The Owner shall have absolute discretion to sell the Horse on whatever terms he/she sees fit without the agreement of or consultation with the Borrower, although this agreement must first be terminated.
4.1.7. allow the Owner reasonable access to the Horse at the address specified above at any reasonable time;

If I travelled a 150 miles and was not allowed access to my horse, and if I thought I needed to ride to asses whether was being cared for to my satisfaction, as far as I am concerned as the owner, wanting to ride my horse, that is my right. I wouldn't matter how good a rider the loaner thought they were and how badly they thought I rode.
I have also had a horse on permanent loan, and would not have dreamed of preventing the owner from riding him.
I now understand the thinking behind people who have ignored my loan agreement instructions, even though they have read it, agreed to it and signed it.
Click to expand...

There is no question of refusing access for a check - both the loaner and YO are happy with that and have said they would accommodate it.

Nor are they preventing the owner riding - but if the owner can ONLY do one specific day, and the loaner can't be there, I don't personally think it is reasonable to expect to ride.

A loan agreement should specify expectations for riding. There's no intrinsic objection to it, but it needs to be clear in advance. I can't be the only one who has known an owner insist on occasional rides, which happened to include xc jaunts and competitions - several times a month and with no thought to the loaner's own programme.

In this specific situation, what would happen if tack goes missing while the owner has access to the tack room? What happens if the owner gets injured whilst riding unsupervised on the YO's land? What happens if the horse is hooleyed up the gallops and goes lame?

As far as I can see, the loaner is being reasonable, but the owner hasn't helped herself by specifying riding in advance, and has extremely limited availability when she can visit that doesn't happen to suit. If she wants to ride, and the loaner has already said they were happy with that, she need to be more flexible than one visit every five months on a fixed day! I would not consider that "reasonable" under the terms of the contract.
 
Lévrier;13813184 said:
Apologies for specifically answering your replies HashRouge, but why ever do you think it is OK for the owner to ride the horse while it is on loan? A loan agreement (in my view) hands the responsibility for care, upkeep and exercise of the horse over the the loaner or specified others. It doesn't usually give the option for the owner to come along for a joy ride without being required to pay for any maintenance costs?

As an example, I couldn't see most owners agreeing to (for example) a friend turning up to ride their horse free of charge when they (the friend) felt like it?
Click to expand...
The example you give is not the same at all. Your whole post rather implies that the owner retains no rights to the horse just because they have put it on loan, which I do not agree with. Yes the loaner is paying for the upkeep etc, but ultimately they have not bought the horse and the owner still retains overall responsibility. After all, we all expect owners to check their horses while they are on loan, do we not? I wouldn't expect the owner to be turning up every fortnight wanting to go XC schooling, but if it seems perfectly normal to me that they would want a quick ride when they check the horse say every 3-4 months. It's what I did with my mare when she went on loan, and neither of her loaners ever had an issue with it. Frankly, I viewed it as part of the checking process! A random friend, as you give in your example, has zero rights over the horse so I'm not sure of the relevance to this scenario.

I have to say I'm a little surprised that so many people think the owner should not be able to have the odd ride on their OWN horse. Yes they have chosen to loan it, but they have not chosen to sell, so surely it stands to reason that they still want some involvement with the horse. However, I think I will just have to accept that I do not see eye to eye with a lot of people about this! I would have been mortified if either of my loaners had said I couldn't ride L when I went to check her and would have ended the loan as soon as possible, because it would not have suited me at all.
 
conniegirl said:
If you rented a house would you be happy for the owner to stay overnight when ever they were in town? After all it is thier house!

When renting i was happy enough with the periodic inspections which were arranged at a mutually convenient time but i would not have been happy with the owner demanding to stay the night, let alone on short notice when not convenient to myself and definitely not if it wasnt discussed up front.

As i said, my current loan has a clause about owner riding at inspections but it was discussed up front and will be when convenient to both of us.
Click to expand...


I don't think your example is the same at all! A horse is a living thing, not an object, to which there will almost certainly be a large emotional connection.
 
I've had two horses on loan and I wouldn't have had any objection at all to either owner riding. However, I would have wanted to be there.

I also agree with the point about the YO not wanting a stranger to have access to the tack room/use their facilities etc.

It sounds like a little more communication and flexibility is needed between owner and loaner in this situation before the relationship breaks down.
 
HashRouge said:
I don't think your example is the same at all! A horse is a living thing, not an object, to which there will almost certainly be a large emotional connection.
Click to expand...

But your emotional connection isn't tied to riding the horse surely? Your emotional connection with the horse and the worries on that basis would be just content on the basis the horse is happy in it's new surroundings and is being well looked after?
 
I’m quite surprised by the amount of people that don’t think the owner should be able to ride at their request. My mare is on loan and her owner came and schooled her within the first month but hasn’t done that since. She has hacked her out but hasn’t asked to school her again.

I’d never even think of refusing her request to ride, it is her horse after all!
 
Sophire said:
But your emotional connection isn't tied to riding the horse surely? Your emotional connection with the horse and the worries on that basis would be just content on the basis the horse is happy in it's new surroundings and is being well looked after?
Click to expand...

Being well looked after also means that it is being treated appropriately while ridden, and depending on its stage of training or age I would want to check it wasn't being over worked or worked in appropriately.
I used to loan out to novice riders, they were older animals so less likely to cause problems, but it was quite obvious when they came home the ones that had been ridden one sided. If I rode a loaned out horse and felt unevenness, which the loaner hadn't seen or felt I would want to do further investigation. Not all problems can be spotted from the ground.
If I had a well schooled horse that I was loaning out I would want to check that had been maintained. Whether you are emotionally attached or not you want the horse to have a happy working life, and there are certain things that can be done to help ensure this.
I now have a couple of very nice animals sat in the field which could be ridden but I can no longer be bothered with the hassle of loaners. The attitudes of some of the people expressed on here as confirmed my decision.
 
I don't really understand why you would want to visit when the loaner wasn't around so you could chat to them too anyway?
 
honetpot said:
Being well looked after also means that it is being treated appropriately while ridden, and depending on its stage of training or age I would want to check it wasn't being over worked or worked in appropriately.
I used to loan out to novice riders, they were older animals so less likely to cause problems, but it was quite obvious when they came home the ones that had been ridden one sided. If I rode a loaned out horse and felt unevenness, which the loaner hadn't seen or felt I would want to do further investigation. Not all problems can be spotted from the ground.
If I had a well schooled horse that I was loaning out I would want to check that had been maintained. Whether you are emotionally attached or not you want the horse to have a happy working life, and there are certain things that can be done to help ensure this.
I now have a couple of very nice animals sat in the field which could be ridden but I can no longer be bothered with the hassle of loaners. The attitudes of some of the people expressed on here as confirmed my decision.
Click to expand...

Oh I completely agree, but at the same time I wouldn't loan my horse to someone I didn't believe to be able to ride well enough anyway. I would be visiting already knowing how they ride as they've come to try the horse, and I've been satisfied. Sure maybe I'd want to see the horse ridden by the loaner, but again, wouldn't necessarily expect to ride it myself? By all accounts, if I went to visit and the loaner offered, I'd have a sit, but I don't think I'd expect to on the basis that its my horse.
 
Ah, but loaning is not a static thing. They get influenced by the friend, the trainer or anyone else on the yard that think it will, 'go better' with x and y. I have never had anyone ask me if they can change a bit or a gadget, but they do and that's with tack provided.
 
My thoughts are that if you want to ride the horse however infrequently then you part loan out nand keep it near home.
Full loan is giving all care (including riding responsibilities) to someone else and in return they cover all costs and responsibilities for the horse.
The loaner may ride/train differently to the owner but that does not mean it's wrong amd as an owner you should make sure you are happy before the horse goes to leave somewhere else.
 
i would be happy for my horses owner to ride if she wanted to but i dont think my YO would be happy if this happened while i wasnt there as i think she would be concerned that she would be held responsible if there was an accident to either the horse or the owner so i can understand the YO in this case. i still think it is odd that someone puts a horse on loan and expects to ride when they want to without the loaner being there.
 
You pay the landlord when you rent a house. When you loan a horse its free other than the upkeep costs. It would never cross my mind to say no to a loaner asking to ride and with the many I've loaned out I've always been offered the chance to ride when I visit!
 
If the owner wanted to ride they should have specified it in the loan agreement. It is perfect normal for an owner to check and ask to watch the loaner riding, and pop up on board if the loaner suggests it (which they probably would). But for the owner to pick a day that doesn't suit the loaner and then contact the YO to book gallops, have someone there to get tack, observe them riding etc is very weird.

I don't understand why the owner wants to ride out of the blue and cause so much hassle? the reason of "well you'd want to check how they are going schooling wise' makes no sense, you can clearly see that from the ground. I had two different horses out on loan, and politely took both back on seperate occasions after observing the person riding them just wasn't working out for the horse - nothing awful, just not a good match and the horses schooling was going backwards. I would never have dreamed of going up and asking them could i ride the horse. And to ask when the loaner isn't even there is a bit cheeky and makes things awkward.

I agree with twiggy, full loan is giving all care responsibilities and costs to someone else. I'd be super annoyed if i had it on a training schedule and an owner randomly decided they wants to ride it again. For the amount of hassle it it would cause for one ride, surely its not worth it. Why do you want to ride it?
 
Leo Walker said:
with the many I've loaned out I've always been offered the chance to ride when I visit!
Click to expand...

The difference is that you were obviously natural and organic about the way you approached it. and in 99% of loan cases id imagine the loanee is perfectly happy with a visit and a chat and a quick ' sure why don't you pop up on her' scenario. Thats different to getting a message saying an owner wants to ride, out of the blue, on x day (which doesn't suit) and now you have hassle with YO having to be there to supervise a complete stranger in a tackroom and on their premises. And saying its 'just a walk around a gallops' doesn't make it any simpler - the YO doesn't know who you are and if you can ride at all, if you know how to behave on a gallops (if, say, racehorses are being trained there) or if you are going to suddenly decide you want to go for a canter and blow a tendon under the YOs watch, or if you lose control and have a serious accident and sue them.

Its just messy!
 
Last edited:
Leo Walker said:
You pay the landlord when you rent a house. When you loan a horse its free other than the upkeep costs. It would never cross my mind to say no to a loaner asking to ride and with the many I've loaned out I've always been offered the chance to ride when I visit!
Click to expand...
Except keeping the horse is the dearest part of owning a horse. You can’t expect someone else to pay and you to ride.

I have 2 horses out on loan, I do not financially contribute at all to their keep , so I would not dream of demanding to ride them .

I have ridden one of them, when the loaner suggested it, at a time suitable to loaner , demanding anything more than this imo is unreasonable, unless you still financially contribute.
 
I also would not expect to ride my horse that is on loan - unless i was asked to by the person loaning. It is different if HELPING but I wouldn't expect to turn up at a day I can do and ride a horse when the loanee is not there...and I actually wouldn't have put that in any agreement either.

I also do nto expect to see my horse v regularly but do chat and keep in touch weekly. The horse needs to not see me too often to get the bond with the loanee as well
 
HashRouge said:
But since she owned the horse, I don't see why you would think it was your right to refuse to "let" her ride if she had wanted to. Short of threatening to end the loan if she did, what were your options? I mean, the horse belonged to her.

I'm genuinely astonished that so many of you think it's completely unreasonable for the owner of a horse to have a quick ride on it in its loan home. I can understand the YO perhaps saying no if the loaner wasn't around, but can't understand why a loaner would say no.
Click to expand...

Well in short as she couldn't sell the horse because she couldn't do anything with it, and we had put a lot of work into him to get him rideable, I wouldn't be happy with her coming up and undoing it all in one ride. The answer would have been bring transport and collect him, so yes we would have ended the loan, as we had him to compete, not to reschool for her to ride. If it had been different I would have had no problem letting her ride him, but she wasn't capable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top