its_noodles
Well-Known Member
may be op is really desperate for advice...
Owner will not accept loan horse back
- Thread starter tegwin12
- Start date
fattylumpkin
Well-Known Member
I hope we get more news on OP as well 
Capriole
Well-Known Member
Is there some kind of problem with someone posting on more than one forum? I can't think why anyone would feel the need to point it out on here and on Horse Gossip.
Nettle123
Well-Known Member
I wondered that too!!, The more advice the better surely?
MotherOfChickens
MotherDucker
babymare
Well-Known Member
Heaven forbid people post on other forums! does it really matter?
MiniMilton
Well-Known Member
Crime of the century so it seems
Mithras
Well-Known Member
The OP does have a contract, just not a written one. Working out what its terms are from Facebook is another matter though.
The OP might want to mitigate her losses by trying to return the horse, but if the contract of loan is really for 12 months and the owner requested she insure the horse for vet's bills, then I cannot see why the OP as loaner can avoid being responsible for 12 months care of the horse and vet bills incurred during her care of it. I'd also be aggrieved as owner if the horse had developed a medical condition while in the care of the loaner, and one which is relatively common and easily treated but is not being.
Most insurance companies don't even specify vettings for horses insured for less than £2000 including vets' bills, and simply specify passport number for ID.
Any horse, whether you buy it or loan it, may develop lameness or injury which might prevent riding for a while.
The OP might want to mitigate her losses by trying to return the horse, but if the contract of loan is really for 12 months and the owner requested she insure the horse for vet's bills, then I cannot see why the OP as loaner can avoid being responsible for 12 months care of the horse and vet bills incurred during her care of it. I'd also be aggrieved as owner if the horse had developed a medical condition while in the care of the loaner, and one which is relatively common and easily treated but is not being.
Most insurance companies don't even specify vettings for horses insured for less than £2000 including vets' bills, and simply specify passport number for ID.
Any horse, whether you buy it or loan it, may develop lameness or injury which might prevent riding for a while.
Capriole
Well-Known Member
She has apparently tried to insure, but can't without the passport which the owner has not given her.
It is being treated. I don't think it's clear if the condition was pre-existing or not.
She can't get the passport.
Very true.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
In that case, she shouldn't have taken possession of the horse. Her decision.
Capriole
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm sure everyone's 20/20 hindsight vision is no end of help to the OP.
abracadabra
Well-Known Member
It's everyone's inalienable right to be a smug so-and-so though, don't forget.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Smug or not, what on earth do you think happens if a loan horse injures itself during the loan and isn't insured? What if it got caught on a barb wire fence and needed stitches, or fell on the road? With a loan horse, you are basically getting use of a horse for free ie you don't pay the purchase price, and I don't think making sure you arrange insurance for the period its with you is unreasonable. Its not a question of "hindsight vision", its basic common sense.
lula
Well-Known Member
what are you talking about? this horse was no loaned out of a ruddy car park, strewth!
lula
Well-Known Member
jesus, some of you are just so perfect when you're judging someone else's f*k up on a forum.
Everyone makes a mistake trusting someone once in life before you become the cynical old witches the rest of us are, when you've learned too many times that trusting what people tell you gets you nowhere and you really cant trust anyone.
Maybe some of you would do well to remember that and give the OP a break She came here for advice not a lot of tut tutting and reminding her of how stupid she's been.
Zero00000
Well-Known Member
If you read the entire post you will see that a contract was drawn up for the trial period and owner kept hold of passport (she 'forgot' it on day of collection) and new contract was to be put in place once trial ended,loaner decided to keep horse after trial, new contract was never seen neither was the passport, loaner tried to insure horse but could not without passport, despite asking on numerous occasions so was unable to get insurance for the horse,
I dont think its unreasonable at all, you no longer want the loan, so owner has to take back said horse, I loaned my horse, horse came back to me before the year was out, I needed a little extra time to get money in order but as soon as I was sorted I took my girl back, no matter the reason I wouldn't argue or refuse, shes my horse, my responsibility, on loan or not.
Fellewell
Well-Known Member
In a perfect world the owner should face prosecution for not passing on the passport to the new owner/keeper. The keeper, however could face a fine of up to £5,000 for travelling a horse without a valid passport. I'd go after the owner if it was me.
lula
Well-Known Member
since when did we live in a perfect world? when we do, lets start with bigger issues to solve first like over breeding and toughening up welfare legislation on slaughter houses.
Arizahn
Well-Known Member
I am a bit surprised that the transporter agreed to move the horse without its passport, tbh. It seems to be an awful mess. OP, how is the horse doing currently?
Fellewell
Well-Known Member
You can do what you like. I'm sticking to the subject of this thread.
miss_c
Well-Known Member
Transporter should have refused to take the horse surely?
Polos Mum
Well-Known Member
That would be a big issue with returning the horse, any transporter worth their licence wouldn't risk taking the horse without the passport - very common for jo public not to bother beause we rarely get stopped and would only get a fine, but for a professional the risk to their licence isn't worth it.
Unless 'transporter' was just a mate with a trailer.
cptrayes
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure it's the transporter who was at fault here, not the loanee.
Sunshine
Well-Known Member
Surely if part of the contract was for the owner to supply the passport to enable the loaner to insure, travel and use the horse then the owner was the first person to breach the terms of the contract (albeit a verbal or informal one). At that point the loaner had the right to refuse to continue with the loan due to the breach. As time goes on that she is maintaining the horse she is making it more difficult to support her argument that she has repudiated. She needs to send the owner a formal letter and make arrangements asap.