The dealer that cannot be named

I don't have any skin in this game, but I did notice from the FB group that SWCNBN has apparently now moved to West Malling, in Kent, and potentially still has at least one horse she had at B****hill - locals beware! There are also some comments about her keeping hold of tack that was meant to go with horses she sold on sales livery, so potentially she was/is selling that off as a sideline. And lastly, nobody can seem to find any evidence (yet) of her actually having been entered on the bankruptcy register - I do realise that can take some time logistically, as one can't just go around declaring bankruptcy just to avoid paying debts. Again, no involvement other than being totally appalled at her complete disregard for the safety and welfare of both horses and horse buyers, and really hope she gets her comeuppance.

Edited for grammar.
 
Last edited:
I think it's pretty mild as there are examples of some horses being sold multiple times, not just twice and some very serious injuries. However, currently the only place for buyers to go to check out dealers they've no previous experience of is the dodgy dealer fb pages. All the admins are steadfastly continuing their support for this dealer and calling the numerous complaints and police investigation a witch hunt. One even said they couldn't allow any negative comments due to her being pregnant. This article will come up on searches and it references the fb page where there are so many problems raised that it's clearly not just novice buyers out of their depth. It's a massive about turn for H&H when previously they were pulling all threads started about swcbn. Looks like we could probably name her now!!
 
Last edited:
It's a huge step forward for transparency. A lawyer will have looked at it very carefully and decided what can and cannot be said. They have also named the FB page so people can go and read the full horrific details. I don't think there is a way back for her from here. At least not to where she was - where she had complete control of the narrative. Those days are well and truly over.
 
Is it really a common and accepted thing to send someone thousands of pounds for a horse you haven't even seen in real life or have I read the article wrong. I might agree to small deposit, but to pay for something without even seeing it? It isn't like buying say an unborn as yet foal because you want those bloodlines, because surely these people wanted a horse to ride?? I had no idea all this sort of thing went on! It makes buying at an auction look safe in comparison!
 
Littlest Hobo said:
Is it really a common and accepted thing to send someone thousands of pounds for a horse you haven't even seen in real life or have I read the article wrong. I might agree to small deposit, but to pay for something without even seeing it? It isn't like buying say an unborn as yet foal because you want those bloodlines, because surely these people wanted a horse to ride?? I had no idea all this sort of thing went on! It makes buying at an auction look safe in comparison!
Click to expand...
It's pretty common sadly. The distance selling regulations allow you to return the horse as if it were a pair of shoes that don't fit. This legal protection in the law has made people over confident to do this. Unfortunately, most dodgy dealers are now switched on enough to keep no assets in their own name so that if a horse is returned they don't need to refund as a ccj against them means nothing. If someone is employed you can apply to attach their salary but self employed there is no way to get your money back even if you win the court case.

There's a thread on here where someone did this and it went horribly wrong and then she did the same thing again.
 
nutjob said:
It's pretty common sadly. The distance selling regulations allow you to return the horse as if it were a pair of shoes that don't fit. This legal protection in the law has made people over confident to do this. Unfortunately, most dodgy dealers are now switched on enough to keep no assets in their own name so that if a horse is returned they don't need to refund as a ccj against them means nothing. If someone is employed you can apply to attach their salary but self employed there is no way to get your money back even if you win the court case.

There's a thread on here where someone did this and it went horribly wrong and then she did the same thing again.
Click to expand...
To quote an old comedian _ my gob has never been so smacked!!
 
nutjob said:
It's pretty common sadly. The distance selling regulations allow you to return the horse as if it were a pair of shoes that don't fit. This legal protection in the law has made people over confident to do this. Unfortunately, most dodgy dealers are now switched on enough to keep no assets in their own name so that if a horse is returned they don't need to refund as a ccj against them means nothing. If someone is employed you can apply to attach their salary but self employed there is no way to get your money back even if you win the court case.

There's a thread on here where someone did this and it went horribly wrong and then she did the same thing again.
Click to expand...
No, not "as if it were a pair of shoes that don't fit" for the vast majority affected. Bear in mind she didn't just have good reviews, she had great reviews, glowing testimonies to her diligence in finding a horse that matched what the rider was looking for. So customers weren't expecting to need that right of return, and many had a lifetime of experience of owning/buying horses. Add to that the when people enquired about going to try the horses, she was adept at persuading them the trial was a better option. No-one knew those horses were being sent on repeated trials, that she was taking payment from several customers for the same horse at the same time. I get your point about over confidence, but that didn't apply to many of her buyers, who may have had previous experience of buying unseen. Extensive videos of the horses were provided and many were vetted before they left her yard. Furthermore, she was actively recommended in some of the "dodgy dealer" groups, which further reassured her buyers that they were really unlikely to need that right of return. Of course everyone who knows about this now will be super-wary of going with similar arrangements.
 
nutjob said:
I think it's pretty mild as there are examples of some horses being sold multiple times, not just twice and some very serious injuries. However, currently the only place for buyers to go to check out dealers they've no previous experience of is the dodgy dealer fb pages. All the admins are steadfastly continuing their support for this dealer and calling the numerous complaints and police investigation a witch hunt. One even said they couldn't allow any negative comments due to her being pregnant. This article will come up on searches and it references the fb page where there are so many problems raised that it's clearly not just novice buyers out of their depth. It's a massive about turn for H&H when previously they were pulling all threads started about swcbn. Looks like we could probably name her now!!
Click to expand...
My post was one of the first to have her name left in, some time back now (in a different thread). She complained about it and I provided good evidence to the forum admin, they could run that past their legal team, and that's why it stayed up. If you look back at older threads about her, her name is redacted in nearly all. I think it's now important that nothing goes up that her legal representative could argue is biasing the case against her, or succeed in complaining about. I've known of court cases that failed because defendant's representative argued bias from media accounts. But I don't know where these lines are drawn, or if that would apply in this case. Really pleased that this forum has allowed this thread, and the article has been written, but I'm guessing they have to tread a line based on the legal team's view?
 
Johnny's Star said:
No, not "as if it were a pair of shoes that don't fit" for the vast majority affected. Bear in mind she didn't just have good reviews, she had great reviews, glowing testimonies to her diligence in finding a horse that matched what the rider was looking for. So customers weren't expecting to need that right of return, and many had a lifetime of experience of owning/buying horses. Add to that the when people enquired about going to try the horses, she was adept at persuading them the trial was a better option. No-one knew those horses were being sent on repeated trials, that she was taking payment from several customers for the same horse at the same time. I get your point about over confidence, but that didn't apply to many of her buyers, who may have had previous experience of buying unseen. Extensive videos of the horses were provided and many were vetted before they left her yard. Furthermore, she was actively recommended in some of the "dodgy dealer" groups, which further reassured her buyers that they were really unlikely to need that right of return. Of course everyone who knows about this now will be super-wary of going with similar arrangements.
Click to expand...
You are talking about your own personal feelings about this dealer and the many people who have been scammed by her. I am talking about the law which rightly or wrongly sees a living animal as equivalent of a pair of shoes, a handbag or a tshirt in terms of the distance selling regulations.

If you look at historical posts on dodgy dealers, there are a huge number which relate to other dealers who have been slated time and time again, some also have specific fb pages about them, their aliases and contacts. Yet there are still people who continue to buy unseen and unvetted from even the very worst dealers. My comment is in general response to a question about whether its common nowadays for people to buy unseen, which they clearly do. They may have good reasons for this but historically it was unheard of. It's worth mentioning that there are dealers who will send a different horse to the one in the pictures and videos they've sent you.

I have a lot of sympathy for the victims of this individual as I was scammed by someone (and their dodgy sidekick) who I had known personally for 2 decades, they also had no negative reviews / comments on dodgy dealers and a ccj didn't get any of my money back. I've become a lot more risk averse since then. It turned out that not dissimilar to this case there were a multitude of other victims who got in touch by pm, one had suffered a broken spine. They had all essentially been threatened and harrassed into keeping quiet.
 
Johnny's Star said:
My post was one of the first to have her name left in, some time back now (in a different thread). She complained about it and I provided good evidence to the forum admin, they could run that past their legal team, and that's why it stayed up. If you look back at older threads about her, her name is redacted in nearly all. I think it's now important that nothing goes up that her legal representative could argue is biasing the case against her, or succeed in complaining about. I've known of court cases that failed because defendant's representative argued bias from media accounts. But I don't know where these lines are drawn, or if that would apply in this case. Really pleased that this forum has allowed this thread, and the article has been written, but I'm guessing they have to tread a line based on the legal team's view?
Click to expand...
I agree with this and personally think that the name should still not appear here, including in the screenshot of the article, which would connect this thread and anything in it to her name. As others have said, in H&H's article they will have done all the necessary legal checks, which we have not. Everything here may be true but if any of it isn't (or isn't provable) it might damage a case against her, and let's not take that risk.

I was another who had posts removed previously and that's fair enough (but I also asked that a previous positive post I wrote, before I knew better, was also removed in the interests of fairness. The moderator did so).
 
nutjob said:
You are talking about your own personal feelings about this dealer and the many people who have been scammed by her. I am talking about the law which rightly or wrongly sees a living animal as equivalent of a pair of shoes, a handbag or a tshirt in terms of the distance selling regulations.

If you look at historical posts on dodgy dealers, there are a huge number which relate to other dealers who have been slated time and time again, some also have specific fb pages about them, their aliases and contacts. Yet there are still people who continue to buy unseen and unvetted from even the very worst dealers. My comment is in general response to a question about whether its common nowadays for people to buy unseen, which they clearly do. They may have good reasons for this but historically it was unheard of. It's worth mentioning that there are dealers who will send a different horse to the one in the pictures and videos they've sent you.

I have a lot of sympathy for the victims of this individual as I was scammed by someone (and their dodgy sidekick) who I had known personally for 2 decades, they also had no negative reviews / comments on dodgy dealers and a ccj didn't get any of my money back. I've become a lot more risk averse since then. It turned out that not dissimilar to this case there were a multitude of other victims who got in touch by pm, one had suffered a broken spine. They had all essentially been threatened and harrassed into keeping quiet.
Click to expand...
Absolutely a fair point. However there does need to be something tht protects buyers from mis-selling as I doubt enforcement of a change in the law to prevent distance selling of living creatures would be possible.
 
Barklands said:
Not my area of specialism but pretty sure you can call the insolvency service to find out a list of recent companies that have just had bankruptcy applications (if memory serves correctly)
Click to expand...
It can take a while for a bankruptcy to be agreed and registered. Nobody has found her listed yet. Also, a bankruptcy application won't be agreed to if there's been fraud I think
 
humblepie said:
I am amazed by the amounts in the article that people sent her as a deposit for a horse they hadn't seen and the prices. Well done for H&H for the article as should help warn others.
Click to expand...
We are all extremely disappointed in the write up which never scratched the surface of what has gone on and her history but they have to be extremely careful what they say at this point as if it goes to court and there is a jury that reads all the comments against her it could jeopardise the case in her favour as they may have been swayed by reading them so it’s not classed as a fair trial apparently. Let’s just hope it all gets to come out in the end, the real truths and facts behind it all.
 
I completely understand some peoples' frustration that the article can only scratch the surface - trust me, nobody knows the full depth of this more than those of us who have lived it.

However, we should be celebrating that this is out there at all. Getting this information into the public domain has been an uphill struggle and we have to remember that H&H have to be incredibly careful. The last thing any of us want is for this to get to court, only for a judge to throw it out on a technicality because of what was written online or in a magazine.

This article is a signal, not the final verdict. Its job is to reach the people who aren't in these private groups and to show the authorities that this is a matter of public interest. Every new person who comes forward because of this article adds to the total debt figure and makes the police's job easier.

Let’s focus on the fact that the net is finally closing. The real truths and facts belong in the witness statements that are being sent to the police - that is where they will have the most power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top