Passed 5 stage vetting in October- now retired? Can I do anything?

[Cortez]

She is 12, I appreciate the view that spending £5k on a show jumper may be cheap for some of you but for someone like me who has only ever had £500 horses to muddle on with, this was a large purchase to help me move up the levels.

I wasn’t expecting to buy Milton but I was thinking with an average budget, a 5 stage vetting and good breeding I was doing it right think and getting an experienced BS horse to show me the ropes.

What I wasn’t expecting for my money was to have a lawn mower 4 months later.

Ah, well then I would most certainly have X-rayed that. £5,000 is indeed a lot of money, but you won't get a competitive SJ horse for that unless it is ancient or has a very large question mark over soundness or behaviour. All the vet can do is tell you that the horse is or is not sound on the day of the vetting, and if you didn't ask for radiographs there is no way of proving that it wasn't. Horses dragging their toes CAN be laziness I suppose, but it would be a red flag to me and something that might have put me off. I think you may have to chalk this one up to experience.

 

[SpringArising]

What I wasn’t expecting for my money was to have a lawn mower 4 months later.

Why? You could buy a 50k horse and it could go wrong the next day. That's just horses.

It's a really crappy situation and I feel for you. But I would be blaming myself in this situation.

 

[AmyMay]

But I would be blaming myself in this situation.

Why?

 

[Ambers Echo]

But I would be blaming myself in this situation.

I am sure there are people who are far more experienced than me who would over-ride a vet and act on concerns they identify themselves that a vet has not raised. But I pay for vettings (when I do!) because I am NOT an expert and assume that if a vet passes a horse then it is probably fine. If the horse was completely sound on the day of the vetting then it is just bad luck. But the issue seems to be that there were red flags serious enough for several posters to say they would ask for xrays or walk away that were not discussed with the OP. Surely if the warnings are that obvious to experienced HHOers then a vet should have picked them up?

 

[ihatework]

Why? You could buy a 50k horse and it could go wrong the next day. That's just horses.

It's a really crappy situation and I feel for you. But I would be blaming myself in this situation.

Blaming oneself would be pretty damn harsh.

Admitting naivety possibly

 

[SpringArising]

Why?

Because I wouldn't buy a horse who toe-drags as I know chances are there's a physical reason for it.

But yes, I suppose that's easy for me to say as I have that foresight.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

Because I wouldn't buy a horse who toe-drags as I know chances are there's a physical reason for it.
.

neither would I because the last horse I knew that toe dragged was the one that had stifle issues. but before then had a vet said it was just laziness I probably would have gone with it ( I had a vet and an ACPAT physio miss bilateral lameness in mine).

OP I am really sorry, £5k is a lot of anyone's money. Just don't think there is any comeback considering there is no note of it anywhere. Radiographs may not have shown it up if thats any consolation, they didn't with my horse-they had to go in arthroscopically to get an idea of the actual problem.

 

[Goldenstar]

Everyday in life horses go from sound to unsound it’s simple a numbers game that this will happen in a percentage of cases not long after sale.
FWIW I would always reject a twelve yo that was toe dragging a youngster I would X-ray .

 

[FestiveFuzz]

Having been in a very similar situation I would be incredibly careful with which route you take and make sure you're aware of all possible outcomes before deciding.

Despite 2 clear 5 stage vettings, said horse injured her DDFT a little over a month into owning her and upon ultrasound scans the vet could see evidence of further wear not consistent with a newly backed 5yo. It was his opinion that she had a congenital issue that affected the development of her tendons, however there was no guarantee we could prove that beyond doubt and ultimately I was terrified we'd rack up costs taking them to court only to lose, invalidating our insurance in the process.

As it happens, she was an absolute money pit (albeit a lovely one!) and less than a year into owning her we had to have the PTS which was devastating. It was a costly reminder to always have LOU on a new horse, at least for the first 12 months, but ultimately we chalked it up to seriously bad luck.

 

[foraday]

Unless you have a huge pot of money to crack on through the courts as that what it will take, I would not.

Toe dragging and the fact being lazy I personally would have sent the horse back.

You accepted the vets decision on the day and sadly it has not paid off

I take it you did not have loss of use insurance?

Horses break sadly, all the time

You can ask an equine solicitor for their opinion but think you will be advised it will be long and expensive and no odds about winning. I think they will side with the vet as no xrays done etc and passed a 5 stage on the day.

 

[ycbm]

Just to remind people that the buyer has a text to her farrier asking about toe dragging from just before the pre purchase vetting. This is a game changer as far as evidence that the horse was dragging on the day, as far as I can see.

There is no risk that I can identify in sending a first letter to the vet asking for compensation and I can't see any reason why anyone would suggest that the OP should not do that. If all it achieves is to make that vet give the right advice in future then at least it has achieved something.

A small claim is also minimal risk, costs very little, can be presented yourself (this is preferred), and in most cases the defendant cannot claim costs unless you have been unreasonable. It's a system set up precisely so that little people can sue without a huge cost or lawyers being involved.

 

[EquestrianFairy]

I’m afraid I certainly do not blame myself in this situation, if I was to, I may never purchase a horse again.

I did everything that every professional and experienced person told me to do-

I picked a mid aged horse capable of forgiving my riding mistakes but teaching me the ropes.

I picked a well bred horse with good conformation.

I made sure I had a short trial to ensure suitability.

I had her 5 stage vetted.

I insured her.

3 months later she’s a lawn mower.

I don’t think I could have done anything differently, I went by the vets advice, he never suggested any X-rays and even when I mentioned was it worth starting a joint supplement as she is an older horse he said there was no need and to leave her be.

I am not a vet, if a horse is toe dragging and he says she’s lazy then I would take his word for it, that’s why I had a vetting- I would never consider myself to be able to make such accurate decisions on lameness.

I actually spoke to the vet who diagnosed her and asked would he have passed a horse with a toe drag and he said no.. but what can I do?

It may be I have to chalk this up to experience but I won’t chalk it up to blaming myself.

 

[PeterNatt]

I was so sorry to hear about your horse.

I would consult a specialist equine solicitor for some initial advice on whether you have a good chance of making a claim and how much it would cost to claim through the courts and a list of equine solicitors is to be found below.

Alternatively just claims through the Small claims court which can be done online which makes it easy. Follow this link: https://www.gov.uk/make-money-claim

Deborah Hargreaves
Edmondson Hall Solicitors and Sports Lawyers
25 Exeter Road
Newmarket
Suffolk
CB8 8AR
Tel: 01638 560556
Tel: 01638 564483
E: solicitors@edmondsonhall.com
E: ah@edmondsonhall.com
www.edmondsonhall.com/page/1r6ef/Home/partner.html
Wroyte an article on The Legal pitfalls of Buying and Selling Horses

Actons
Tel: 0115 91002200 Caroline Bowler

Mark Carter
White Bowker Solicitors
Tel: 01962 844440
www.wandb.co.uk
mark.carter@wandb.co.uk

Helen Niebuhr
Darbys Solicitors
52 New Inn Hall Street
Oxford
OX1 2QD
Tel: 01865 811 7000
01865 811712
Fax: 01865 811 777
www.equine-law.net
E: equine@darbys.co.uk

Jaqcui Fulton Equine Law
Tel: 0121 308 5915
jf@equinelawuk.co.uk
www.equinelawuk.co.uk

Hannah Campbell (Specialise in compensation cases)
Tel: 01446 794196 (Specialises in traffic accidents involving horses)
www.horsesolicitor.co.uk
info@horse solicitor


Hanna Campbell
Horse Solicitors
(Took on case in 2013 on behalf of Claire Berry-Jones) involving making a claim Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB)

Elizabeth Simpson Senior Solicitor at law firm Andrew M Jackson
Tel: 01482 325242
www.andrewjackson.co.uk
enquiries@andrewjackson.co.uk

David Forbes or Belinda Walkinshaw
Pickworths Solicitors
6 Victoria Street
St Albans
Hertfordshire
AL1 3JB
01727 844511

Mark de-villamar Roberts
Langleys Solicitors Equine Law Group
Tel: 01904 683051
E: mark.Roberts@langleys.com
www.equinelawyers.co.uk

Elizabeth Simpson
Senior Solicitor
Andrew Jackson
Yorkshire
Tel: 01482 325242
www.andrewjackson.co.uk

Richmond Solicitors
13-15 High Street
Keynsham
Bristol
BS31 1DP
Tel: 0117 986 9555
Fax: 0117 986 8680
enquiries@richmonssolicitorsco.uk

Jacqui Fulton
Giselle Robinson Solicitors

Inderjit Gill
Jacksons Specialist Equine Solicitor
Represented Gaynor Goodall in an accident on a bridleway on Tameside County Court 01 February 2010

Knights Solicitors
Tunbridge Wells
Tel: 01892 537311
www.knights-solicitors.co.uk
Work with GRC Commercial Bailiffs
Senior partner very good on equine matters

Horse Solicitor
Tel: 01446 794 196
info@horsesolicitor.co.uk
www.horsesolicitor.com

www.laytons.com

Mary Ann Reay Charles or Chris Shaw
Shaw and Co Solicitors
Equine Law Specialists
Tel: 0800 019 1248
info@shawandco.com
www.shawandco.com

Arnold Thomson
205 Watling Street West
Towcester
Northants
NN12 6BX
Tel: 01327 350266
Fax: 01327 353567
www.arnoldthomson.com
enquiries@arnoldthomson.com

Tozers www.tozers.co.uk

 

[EquestrianFairy]

Bless you. I can understand how gutting it must be. 5k is a lot of money to the vast majority of people.

If it was 5k on a 12yo BN/disco horse with a few poles here and there then I’d have thought nothing of it. If it was 5k on a horse jumping bigger tracks and with a break in its record there would have been a strong fishy smell floating around and I’d have been xraying and insuring LOU on the gamble if I could afford to write the money off. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.

In terms of moving forwards proceed carefully. I’d get some legal advice from someone who knows about the complexities of buying sport horses before you do anything else.

My gut feeling is that you will have to swallow this and move on. I’ve been there so know how you feel.

Yes she was only doing BN/DIS, nothing exciting or amazing but she was all I wanted/needed to help me progress.

I have the same feeling, suck it up and move on, though it’s suitably painful and raw right now.

 

[FestiveFuzz]

There is no risk that I can identify in sending a first letter to the vet asking for compensation and I can't see any reason why anyone would suggest that the OP should not do that.

Except that by doing that the OP is acknowledging that she believes the issue to be pre-existing which opens up a whole can of worms when it comes to her insurance.

 

[ycbm]

Except that by doing that the OP is acknowledging that she believes the issue to be pre-existing which opens up a whole can of worms when it comes to her insurance.

Fair point. I thought the treating vet was already expressing the opinion that the condition was pre existing, but if they're not telling the insurance company that, it changes things a lot.

Another good reason not to insure.

 

[EquestrianFairy]

This is what my current vet said-

To put it down as pre existing will invalidate my insurance.. but does this still count if she’s no longer insured?

They’ve paid the costs to date for diagnosis, there is no further treatment for her.

 

[Mule]

This is what my current vet said-

To put it down as pre existing will invalidate my insurance.. but does this still count if she’s no longer insured?

They’ve paid the costs to date for diagnosis, there is no further treatment for her.

I suppose if the company were to hear of it, they could persue you for what they've already paid out. I don't know how likely that is.

 

[FestiveFuzz]

This is what my current vet said-

To put it down as pre existing will invalidate my insurance.. but does this still count if she’s no longer insured?

They’ve paid the costs to date for diagnosis, there is no further treatment for her.

By no longer insured do you mean you've paid up and cancelled the policy or that treatment for this is now an exclusion?

Generally when putting in a claim you have to confirm that the issue isn't a pre-existing condition. So at a guess I'd say by accepting payment for treatment and then going after the vets on the basis they missed what you deem to be a pre-existing condition you could land yourself in hot water as you're effectively acknowledging you were committing fraud when you stated to the insurers it wasn't a pre-existing condition.

 

[Red-1]

There is no risk that I can identify in sending a first letter to the vet asking for compensation and I can't see any reason why anyone would suggest that the OP should not do that. If all it achieves is to make that vet give the right advice in future then at least it has achieved something.

Generally when putting in a claim you have to confirm that the issue isn't a pre-existing condition. So at a guess I'd say by accepting payment for treatment and then going after the vets on the basis they missed what you deem to be a pre-existing condition you could land yourself in hot water as you're effectively acknowledging you were committing fraud when you stated to the insurers it wasn't a pre-existing condition.

Was composing a reply to YCBM but see FF has done it better!

You would not have suspected it was a pre-existing condition when you first started investigations, but will have known it is likely to be by the time the investigations were finished and you put in the claim. If you had told the insurance company this then they would have refused the expenses so far.

You can only have one bite of the cherry.

 

[ycbm]

ROCK. Equestrian Fairy. HARD PLACE.


😞😒😩

 

[EquestrianFairy]

Story of my life :-(

 

[honetpot]

I would go to small claims, get a statement CD-ROM the vet that diagnosed him. If you lose with a bit of luck you will have seen the whites of the vets eyes. Some are so arrogant they do not defend or turn up with no evidence. This happened to a friend.You paid for a service, you got poor service and advice, which again you were paying for. They were supposed to vet it for the work you wanted it to do, the cost of the animal should not come into it. Under six months they will have to prove they did not give bad service, after six months you have to prove it.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I've no advice as to how the OP should proceed, but she is absolutely not to blame for accepting the vet's opinion that the toe dragging was laziness and nothing to worry about. That is why we employ experts, who are supposed to know more than us. She flagged it up, and was told it was ok.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

Nothing further to add to all the opinion and advice you have been given on here. But I do want to say how very sorry I am that this has happened to you after doing everything you would be recommended to do under normal circumstances when horse shopping. As for asking the vet to Xray - why would you if the vet had assured you all looks good and no hint of possible problems? We aren't talking International eventer here are we where xraying would all just be part and parcel of the vetting??

And I also think £5,000 is a considerable amount to pay for a horse and a huge loss for you, me and most average horse owners. I really hope you can move forward after this and work something out so you can continue to pursue your ambitions to go up the levels. Really sorry

 

[cariad]

I would go to small claims, get a statement CD-ROM the vet that diagnosed him. If you lose with a bit of luck you will have seen the whites of the vets eyes. Some are so arrogant they do not defend or turn up with no evidence. This happened to a friend.You paid for a service, you got poor service and advice, which again you were paying for. They were supposed to vet it for the work you wanted it to do, the cost of the animal should not come into it. Under six months they will have to prove they did not give bad service, after six months you have to prove it.

First of all, the list of equine solicitors may be a bit out of date, so do check. Hanna Campbell at Horse Solicitors is still operating.

Secondly, the 6 month service point is not quite right, I don't think. If a defect is found in something within six months of purchase, then the defect is assumed to have been there at the point of sale, unless the seller can prove otherwise. Normally it would be for the buyer to prove. It is called "reversing the burden of proof". If the defect is found after 6 months from purchase, then the normal rules apply and it is for the purchaser to prove that the defect was there at purchase. Not sure it applies to service, so that needs verifying. But if you let the 6 months pass without saying anything, then you lose that advantage.

Proof of a defect can be difficult either way. If the seller had no inkling of the problem, then there may be no vet records to show it was there. Same for a purchaser trying to show it WAS there. You may need expert evidence on the condition to try and support the argument that it is something that by it's nature would be something that was, or was more than likely to have been there at the time of sale/purchase and not something that could have just come out of the blue. But if the seller can't prove it wasn't there, then they could be deemed to have not proved their case (or in this case defence). It may not apply here, as the buyer seems to want to go against the vet anyway rather than the seller and she appeared to rely on the vet rather than anything the seller said or didn't say. Therefore, she may have lost any right to go against the seller, as basically, the vet's action has sort of intervened between the seller and buyer, if you see what I mean. Not definitely, but a possible argument.

I would also be looking at the trial period as a potential problem. if I have got it right, then the buyer had a trial and the horse was fine and then you had her vetted. I'm not saying it WOULD be a problem, but there might be an argument as to whether it was something that happened during that period to cause or trigger the condition which up to that point may have been there, but dormant and asymptomatic, such that the owner might not have known about it, or not there at all. I mention this because there are exceptions to the 6 month rule, in that the damage must not have been caused by fair wear and tear, accidental damage or mis-use during that period.

The vet has to use "reasonable care and skill" in providing veterinary services. I am sure you can imagine the arguments over what is "reasonable". Basically, it's whether most reasonable vets would have come to the same conclusion that the vet in question here did on the facts and the evidence available.

Please do not rely on these comments as a definitive guide to the law; there's a lot more to it and do take proper, professional,independent legal advice if you are going to consider any legal action, (even if it's just writing to the vet concerned to raise the issue) based on the full facts and details. What initially seems simple has a nasty habit of getting very complicated! But if you are going to do something, always best to do it sooner rather than later, before memories fade and that sort of thing.

 

[honetpot]

I was using the The Consumer Rights Act 2015 in the context of the vet supply a service, like a mechanic not fixing your car properly but charging you, or providing a service not of good quality, not against the supplier of the horse. I think the onus would be on the vet to show though documentation that he took reasonable care. I have it drummed in to me if its not documented it never happened, even if its just a tick box. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/
Having looked at some vets notes I am surprised that they get away with it. I see you scratched finger, and I have to fill in three pages plus a diagram, and justify everything I do or do not do.

 

[JJS]

I've nothing further to add, OP, except my sympathies. I found myself in a very similar situation with one of mine, albeit I'd spent less and had a little more time riding him than you did. His condition was pre-existing, but I don't blame the seller one bit - they were upfront about the fact that he could occasionally head shake, and it was my own naivety that meant I didn't realise how serious that could be. I also ended up with a retiree as a result - he was only seven - and no budget to buy a third horse, which felt like a huge injustice at the time. However, it did all work out in the end, and whilst I eventually ended up with four, I chalked it up to experience and found that it didn't mark an end to my horsey aspirations forever. I very much hope that your story will end the same way, and have every confidence that it will

 

[cariad]

Yes, right Act, but I think the 6 month rule (which was originally a European Directive, now incorporated into the Act) may only apply to defects in goods and not to services.

If you are the person making the claim in veterinary negligence and/or breach of contract, the burden is on you as the claimant to prove your case -i.e. that the vet did not act with reasonable care and skill in providing a service. This is usually done through independent expert evidence in the form of a report. The vet would be likely to put in a similar report by way of a defence to show they DID act with reasonable skill and care and in a way that the reasonable majority of vets in a similar situation and on the same or similar facts would have acted and come to the same conclusion. I don't believe the 6 months rule is used in such cases as it's not a defect and the usual rules of evidence and burden of proof apply.

You would be correct in the majority of cases to say that if it is not written down it didn't happen (and vice versa), but don't forget oral evidence is still valid evidence. It depends on credibility. A vet may say, well, I didn't actually write it down, but I did tell the client about it (whatever it is) and the judge may choose to believe them. Or not. They often say "It was my usual practice to.... (do or say whatever); I've no reason to see why I would have deviated from that course in this case, but I just forgot to write it down on this one occasion. The judge might believe them. Obviously it is much better evidence if it is written down. If you are interested, look up the case of Blass-v-Randall where this happened to an unfortunate vet who was sued, but she won the case on oral evidence, partly because the claimant was thought to be a liar by the judge (always helpful) but partly because the judge believed her to be an honest vet who just didn't think to write it down at the time. The judge all but said "Bet she will from now on!"

 

[Tagoat]

My sympathies to you EF. Really. I ALWAYS equate purchasing a second hand horse with buying a second hand car. You just KNOW you are buying potential problems, no matter how well the product is presented.