Sharers v Riding Schools

[lizziebell]

Always controversial, but usually she just says what others are too scared to say out loud ….but her post on the Talland Facebook page yesterday has definitely alienated the masses !

 

[SafeInSage]

I can’t quite remember what it was on, but they did this a few months ago about licensing for something else (or possibly sharing again) and it became very controversial. I believe they were in the wrong at that time?

In all honesty, I’d rather they consult a professional than cause a storm on facebook. Lot of people will end up getting worried about nothing now.

 

[Wishfilly]

This is what was shared, btw- for anyone else wanting to participate in the thread.

It's very clear though from the legislation that a licence is required once you become a business. Most people who "share" their horses are not making a profit or running a business in any way, so clearly it doesn't apply.

I do think there are some people who effectively try to get around licencing legislation by running a riding school via sharers/part loaners, but that's a separate issue. There are also people who offer training on one horse of their own, who again do need a licence and don't get one.

But I think it's very clear the legislation is not intended to cover a normal sort of sharing arrangement.

I think the legal grey area might be more around leasing of e.g. show ponies/top horses. In some cases that is a business, and they are hiring out the horses, albiet for a long period e.g. a season, or a few years. I would assume most leasers don't have a licence, and I wonder if technically they should.

 

[dogatemysalad]

If advertising for a sharer was considered a business arrangement for profit, I suspect that private horse owners might be forced to select an applicant, even if they didn't feel the person was right for their horse. Sharing a much loved, privately owned horse is a very personal decision and I wouldn't want to have to justify my choice to avoid being accused of some sort of discrimination. I might prefer to choose a man, or a lightweight teenage girl, not because my horse can't carry a rider of a certain weight or height , but because he goes better for certain riders.
Most share arrangements are not done to make a profit, it's just a contribution with the main reason being the horses welfare.
I'm extremely selective about who rides my horse, so I generally pay a rider to exercise instead. It's less stressful.

 

[GoldenWillow]

Does a sharer come under the same sort of legislation as giving a lift or lending your lorry to someone and whilst accepting money for this "service" would mean it comes into hire and reward but accepting reasonable money for fuel is ok? I think this is how I've always thought of it. So money for costs is allowed but charging per ride brings it into the hire and reward area?

 

[teapot]

I’d agree they may have a point if the share became hire and reward, or the owner of the horse started offering paid for lessons

Otherwise, I’m not sure how sharing would fall under the licence, as it’s about being a business providing a service and controlling the quality (in the loosest sense, licensing needs tightening up imho) of said service.

 

[ester]

I don't really get where the point has even come from, RS round here pretty much all have waitlists anyway. I get they might have clients who try it and it doesn't work out so come back but most of the sharers on my yard have previously or still have their own. It seems to me (as I have commented on fb) that they have fundamentally misunderstood the reasons people share horses, it's not just for riding.

All that would change is that people would buy the shoes/the feed/etc instead of paying the owner direct.

I do think one of the big differences is also that if you are having a lesson you are covering all the costs of that lesson. If you're sharing you're not covering all the costs of anything.

 

[Rowreach]

I get that centres like Talland and Ingestre have huge overheads, and afaik they are well run outfits, but I am getting a little tired of the passive aggressive (and not so passive) posts they keep putting out which are bashing a good number of the horse owning population.

I don't know if anyone follows Eric Smiley on Facebook, but he does the same, has a pop at the people who are paying his wages, in an manner that I find really quite condescending and unpleasant, and not at all professional.

 

[Wishfilly]

Does a sharer come under the same sort of legislation as giving a lift or lending your lorry to someone and whilst accepting money for this "service" would mean it comes into hire and reward but accepting reasonable money for fuel is ok? I think this is how I've always thought of it. So money for costs is allowed but charging per ride brings it into the hire and reward area?

The legislation around horses for hire specifically says as a business, I believe- but I think it's very much the same principle.

The law actually specifically excludes "

• people who occasionally lend a horse, even if a small fee is charged, where there is no profit made and no intent to make a profit
• people who hire out horses occasionally and have a trading income below the current HMRC trading income allowance"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...sing-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities

I found that out in a 5 minute google search, so it's clear that the post was designed to provoke- if they just wanted to know the answer it's easy to find!

 

[southerncomfort]

I get that centres like Talland and Ingestre have huge overheads, and afaik they are well run outfits, but I am getting a little tired of the passive aggressive (and not so passive) posts they keep putting out which are bashing a good number of the horse owning population.

I don't know if anyone follows Eric Smiley on Facebook, but he does the same, has a pop at the people who are paying his wages, in an manner that I find really quite condescending and unpleasant, and not at all professional.

Agree.

I left another group run by Pammy, Heather Moffatt and Tim Downes, supposedly about improving the welfare of ridden and competition horses, when they started dictating what could and couldn't be discussed and calling anyone who disagreed with their opinions 'extremists'.

I'm afraid hobby owners aren't highly thought of in some circles.

 

[AdorableAlice]

The guidance for trading threshold is misleading. Many people think the 1k threshold is for the amount made by the activity. it is actually the total threshold of ALL your income.

Mrs Hutton etc have a very valid point. Some yards have gone down the sharing/loaning route and away from the hourly hiring. Example - Pip the Pony is available for me to ride 3 days a week for a fee of £100, I have a contract saying Pip is mine for 3 days Monday to Wednesday. On Thursday to Sunday Pip the Pony is shared/loaned to my sister, she pays £125. We both have a lesson on Pip the Pony as part of our share/loan agreement, the lesson is given by the owner of Pip the Pony or her husband. The yard is nice with good facilities, it used to be a riding school. I go hacking on Pip on my allocated days and I could take Pip hunting if I pay the field money. I don't know if Pip is insured but the owner tells me I am insured to ride Pip.

Pip the Pony grosses £900 a month for the owner, who also has a few other ponies on similar agreements. Of course Pip and her companions cost a lot to keep with all the overheads and feed, shoes etc. My first question to the forum is does the owner of Pip and her equine friends need a licence under the Licensing of Activities Involving Animals (England) 2018 Regulations ?

My second question is, my sister and I love riding Pip but we've both had falls during our weekly lesson and been injured and couldn't ride for a few weeks. We still paid for our share but Pip was ridden by other people when we couldn't ride her and those riders had to pay to ride her. Is that ok ? we were surprised.

 

[Wishfilly]

The guidance for trading threshold is misleading. Many people think the 1k threshold is for the amount made by the activity. it is actually the total threshold of ALL your income.

Mrs Hutton etc have a very valid point. Some yards have gone down the sharing/loaning route and away from the hourly hiring. Example - Pip the Pony is available for me to ride 3 days a week for a fee of £100, I have a contract saying Pip is mine for 3 days Monday to Wednesday. On Thursday to Sunday Pip the Pony is shared/loaned to my sister, she pays £125. We both have a lesson on Pip the Pony as part of our share/loan agreement, the lesson is given by the owner of Pip the Pony or her husband. The yard is nice with good facilities, it used to be a riding school. I go hacking on Pip on my allocated days and I could take Pip hunting if I pay the field money. I don't know if Pip is insured but the owner tells me I am insured to ride Pip.

Pip the Pony grosses £900 a month for the owner, who also has a few other ponies on similar agreements. Of course Pip and her companions cost a lot to keep with all the overheads and feed, shoes etc. My first question to the forum is does the owner of Pip and her equine friends need a licence under the Licensing of Activities Involving Animals (England) 2018 Regulations ?

My second question is, my sister and I love riding Pip but we've both had falls during our weekly lesson and been injured and couldn't ride for a few weeks. We still paid for our share but Pip was ridden by other people when we couldn't ride her and those riders had to pay to ride her. Is that ok ? we were surprised.

FWIW, I agree the situation you're describing happens, and I agree it's a problem- I know someone who was seriously injured during this sort of arrangement. People had warned her it was dodgy, and when things went wrong, she had real issues around insurance and who was covered for what. After this, the set up did change BTW.

I am also interested into how more expensive leases (which are becoming more common, I think) fit into this situation. I believe there are some people who lease out multiple show ponies every season, and it's 100% a business. But I'm not sure how it fits into licencing.

But if someone has an issue with this specific set up (which I agree is majorly problematic), then it can be discussed properly, not in a way that seems to be a dig at all owners/sharers, or could cause unnecessary worry to people. If this is the point she wanted to make, she could have made it a lot more clearly, I feel.

 

[SafeInSage]

The legislation around horses for hire specifically says as a business, I believe- but I think it's very much the same principle.

The law actually specifically excludes "

• people who occasionally lend a horse, even if a small fee is charged, where there is no profit made and no intent to make a profit
• people who hire out horses occasionally and have a trading income below the current HMRC trading income allowance"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...sing-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities

I found that out in a 5 minute google search, so it's clear that the post was designed to provoke- if they just wanted to know the answer it's easy to find!

I believe this was the same thing people told them the last time they pulled the same stunt on Facebook about sharers, so it will not be news to them. Couldn’t find the exact post as it was made sometime earlier this year, but they seem obsessed with putting out provoking questions about licences.

I wouldn’t mind if they were aiming to educate, but they’re not. It’s a real shame. I’ve been to Talland and found it to be an excellent school and very well run. Unfortunately, whoever is running their page seems to enjoy scaremongering.

 

[Rowreach]

The guidance for trading threshold is misleading. Many people think the 1k threshold is for the amount made by the activity. it is actually the total threshold of ALL your income.

Mrs Hutton etc have a very valid point. Some yards have gone down the sharing/loaning route and away from the hourly hiring. Example - Pip the Pony is available for me to ride 3 days a week for a fee of £100, I have a contract saying Pip is mine for 3 days Monday to Wednesday. On Thursday to Sunday Pip the Pony is shared/loaned to my sister, she pays £125. We both have a lesson on Pip the Pony as part of our share/loan agreement, the lesson is given by the owner of Pip the Pony or her husband. The yard is nice with good facilities, it used to be a riding school. I go hacking on Pip on my allocated days and I could take Pip hunting if I pay the field money. I don't know if Pip is insured but the owner tells me I am insured to ride Pip.

Pip the Pony grosses £900 a month for the owner, who also has a few other ponies on similar agreements. Of course Pip and her companions cost a lot to keep with all the overheads and feed, shoes etc. My first question to the forum is does the owner of Pip and her equine friends need a licence under the Licensing of Activities Involving Animals (England) 2018 Regulations ?

My second question is, my sister and I love riding Pip but we've both had falls during our weekly lesson and been injured and couldn't ride for a few weeks. We still paid for our share but Pip was ridden by other people when we couldn't ride her and those riders had to pay to ride her. Is that ok ? we were surprised.

Well that's a whole different scenario to what is in the Facebook post, which refers to a person looking for someone to share a horse, and pay a bit towards its keep, although I suspect Pammy et al are probably alluding to the set up you describe as well.

 

[teapot]

I don't really get where the point has even come from, RS round here pretty much all have waitlists anyway. I get they might have clients who try it and it doesn't work out so come back but most of the sharers on my yard have previously or still have their own. It seems to me (as I have commented on fb) that they have fundamentally misunderstood the reasons people share horses, it's not just for riding.

All that would change is that people would buy the shoes/the feed/etc instead of paying the owner direct.

I do think one of the big differences is also that if you are having a lesson you are covering all the costs of that lesson. If you're sharing you're not covering all the costs of anything.

I think it’s about owners/private individuals going down the hire and reward route - see @AdorableAlice post, which suddenly became a huge thing during Covid, and has continued as it’s a very easy way of making money above and beyond what x horse actually costs per month. Also easier too, and requires fewer staff!

They absolutely should have a licence imho, and should go through the rigmarole riding schools do to run legally. Like a lot of topics posted about, it’s an interesting discussion worded badly!

I get that centres like Talland and Ingestre have huge overheads, and afaik they are well run outfits, but I am getting a little tired of the passive aggressive (and not so passive) posts they keep putting out which are bashing a good number of the horse owning population.

You’ll notice Talland and Ingestre post the same things too, right down to font and text. They literally share stuff, and are very much working together

 

[ester]

Yes, but I think they should have then worded better to capture that, there is that sort of set up near Ely that is absolutely commercial/making money under the title of share, anyone who has shared/owned would know it is but they do attract people who have only been at a riding school so far and then think that's how shares work.

 

[Roxylola]

I think it’s about owners/private individuals going down the hire and reward route - see @AdorableAlice post, which suddenly became a huge thing during Covid, and has continued as it’s a very easy way of making money above and beyond what x horse actually costs per month. Also easier too, and requires fewer staff!

They absolutely should have a licence imho, and should go through the rigmarole riding schools do to run legally. Like a lot of topics posted about, it’s an interesting discussion worded badly!



You’ll notice Talland and Ingestre post the same things too, right down to font and text. They literally share stuff, and are very much working together

I wish this were true. I know some of the people involved in this, and I know this is not the scenario they're talking about. I fully agree that should be licensed and I wish they'd focus on that kind of set up. I think most of us regular folk could support that - I know at least one person who absolutely should be licensed and ducks it by "sharing"
However this is meant as it reads unfortunately they're going after the idea that Jo bloggs whose sharer pays a nominal amount towards hay and benefits hugely from the arrangement.
I was hoping the BHS might improve and regain some credibility with the cooperation between Talland and Ingestre, there are rafts of issues that as horse owners we could all improve together. This will simply drive a wedge and further the idea that the BHS has little (nothing) to offer the average equestrian

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

I recently came across what I think is a livery yard centralising sharing at their yard - I guess in a similar way to how some riding schools loan ponies except it's a livery yard. It seemed like potentially a good deal, lots of support on site and good facilities, but it was a flat rate/every sharer pays/gets the same and I couldn't do enough days per week to make it a good deal for me. I didn't look further into it because of this but would be interesting to know how these shares work as it was the yard advertising and messaging about them rather than directly with owner so much.

 

[teapot]

I wish this were true. I know some of the people involved in this, and I know this is not the scenario they're talking about. I fully agree that should be licensed and I wish they'd focus on that kind of set up. I think most of us regular folk could support that - I know at least one person who absolutely should be licensed and ducks it by "sharing"
However this is meant as it reads unfortunately they're going after the idea that Jo bloggs whose sharer pays a nominal amount towards hay and benefits hugely from the arrangement.
I was hoping the BHS might improve and regain some credibility with the cooperation between Talland and Ingestre, there are rafts of issues that as horse owners we could all improve together. This will simply drive a wedge and further the idea that the BHS has little (nothing) to offer the average equestrian

As I said, it's a great subject to discuss, just badly worded. If they're actively going out against those who simply share, then I'm really not sure what they're trying to achieve?

 

[Wishfilly]

I recently came across what I think is a livery yard centralising sharing at their yard - I guess in a similar way to how some riding schools loan ponies except it's a livery yard. It seemed like potentially a good deal, lots of support on site and good facilities, but it was a flat rate/every sharer pays/gets the same and I couldn't do enough days per week to make it a good deal for me. I didn't look further into it because of this but would be interesting to know how these shares work as it was the yard advertising and messaging about them rather than directly with owner so much.

The difference is that the riding school will be properly licenced and insured. A yard like this probably isn't- and is very probably breaking the law. This can cause all sorts of issues with insurance etc, and it's likely it looks such a good deal because corners will be cut somewhere. Personally, I wouldn't get involved.

It's a shame, because a set up like this run properly could actually be a really good transition for people towards horse ownership, but in general it's done to get around riding school licencing rules, and so is inherently dodgy.

 

[teapot]

I recently came across what I think is a livery yard centralising sharing at their yard - I guess in a similar way to how some riding schools loan ponies except it's a livery yard. It seemed like potentially a good deal, lots of support on site and good facilities, but it was a flat rate/every sharer pays/gets the same and I couldn't do enough days per week to make it a good deal for me. I didn't look further into it because of this but would be interesting to know how these shares work as it was the yard advertising and messaging about them rather than directly with owner so much.

If they're not licensed, they're breaking the law, and in fairness to Pammy is partly her point - it undermines the rules and laws that riding schools have to go through in order to operate legally.

It is worth talking about though when riding schools are closing, others are dodging the law and the decent ones are beginning to charge prices that for the majority will begin to become out of reach on a regular basis.

 

[Roxylola]

@teapot I agree it is a great subject. I think the feeling is that those who simply share are taking away profit from riding schools who are working hard and ever squeezed who have the expense of complying with licenses etc. Personally I disagree I think there's room for us all at the table - united we stand etc

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

The difference is that the riding school will be properly licenced and insured. A yard like this probably isn't- and is very probably breaking the law. This can cause all sorts of issues with insurance etc, and it's likely it looks such a good deal because corners will be cut somewhere. Personally, I wouldn't get involved.

It's a shame, because a set up like this run properly could actually be a really good transition for people towards horse ownership, but in general it's done to get around riding school licencing rules, and so is inherently dodgy.

Interesting. I don't know enough about it (i.e., if agreement is with owner or the yard, it's a full livery yard I think). I assumed insurance and things would come under them being a business already as a livery yard but perhaps not depending on the set up they have. It did sound good for that transition as you say. It wasn't for me though as it wasn't cheap and I was/am looking for just a day or two per week.

 

[Rowreach]

If they're not licensed, they're breaking the law, and in fairness to Pammy is partly her point - it undermines the rules and laws that riding schools have to go through in order to operate legally.

It is worth talking about though when riding schools are closing, others are dodging the law and the decent ones are beginning to charge prices that for the majority will begin to become out of reach on a regular basis.

Then they should be targeting those businesses, not the average horse owner/sharer who have a mutually beneficial agreement which enables one person to keep their horse and another to have one to ride, without having to own one.

 

[teapot]

@teapot I agree it is a great subject. I think the feeling is that those who simply share are taking away profit from riding schools who are working hard and ever squeezed who have the expense of complying with licenses etc. Personally I disagree I think there's room for us all at the table - united we stand etc

Then they should be targeting those businesses, not the average horse owner/sharer who have a mutually beneficial agreement which enables one person to keep their horse and another to have one to ride, without having to own one.

As I said - it's been very badly worded, where two issues have been confused. Nor do I personally think your average sharer is taking away anything from riding schools.

In fact, if riding schools actually upped their game, and I include the best in the UK here (I ride at one!) people I think would happily support them more than they currently do.

 

[ester]

I think unless you are near one of a very few we're pretty limited with regards to RS that cater for more 'advanced' riders too.

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

If they're not licensed, they're breaking the law, and in fairness to Pammy is partly her point - it undermines the rules and laws that riding schools have to go through in order to operate legally.

It is worth talking about though when riding schools are closing, others are dodging the law and the decent ones are beginning to charge prices that for the majority will begin to become out of reach on a regular basis.

As I say I've not got the finer details about it but it was the impression I had from the enquiry I made about one of these shares.

I am hoping I can do something via my RS instead of a share as I am struggling to find a share. I think the RS do some kind of points system for helpers to get some riding in exchange for the volunteering, and are an event centre too so possibly opportunities to get involved that way.

I do think some RS need to think about their offerings for adult, non-beginner riders, particularly in terms of non-ridden activities. It seems often limited to nothing, or very expensive mucking out lessons!

 

[teapot]

I think unless you are near one of a very few we're pretty limited with regards to RS that cater for more 'advanced' riders too.

That's a whole other thread!

 

[Roxylola]

As I said - it's been very badly worded, where two issues have been confused. Nor do I personally think your average sharer is taking away anything from riding schools.

In fact, if riding schools actually upped their game, and I include the best in the UK here (I ride at one!) people I think would happily support them more than they currently do.

Again I know people involved - not pammy but I'm on first name terms with others and I know this isnt a well intended badly worded post. The intent is all sharers.
Im very pro riding school and have been lucky enough to work and train at and with some of the best.
It's not bad wording it's badly intended and I'm very concerned that this will back fire and be divisive at a time when we need to be united as equestrians

 

[ester]

That's a whole other thread!

Yes but it just reiterates to me that we're not their potential clients that are taking business away by sharing and having lessons with a freelancer.