Unsuitable horse

M

millymoose

Member
Joined
12 January 2012
Messages
13
Visit site
Please could someone advise?

What are buyer and seller rights if a horse is purchased privately and is then found to be unsuitable for purpose?

We have recently purchased a horse which passed a 5-stage vetting and when it arrived at our yard, it turns out to have advanced arthritis in the spine which makes is unsuitable for the purpose for which we purchased it, i.e. show jumping with a heavier male rider.

We do not want to keep the horse but would like to know our consumer rights regarding refund from the seller.

Thank you!
 
You may have some recourse to the vet that conducted the vetting? Did you specify to the vet that the horse would be used for SJ with a heavy rider?

Not sure otherwise because the seller will say that you bought the horse as seen and tried and passing a full vetting, so they would feel they have done nothing wrong. Have you contacted the seller?
 
You have no recourse against a private seller I'm afraid. You might have some come back against the vet who conducted the vetting. But if the horse was doped to disguise pain, or wasn't ridden in the vetting, then that might be difficult too.

The seller might agree to take the horse back if it is a loved animal - but if not you might be better off dealing with it yourself - even if that includes PTS.
 
Agree with the above no legal rights at all. The seller may agree to take the horse back as a gesture of goodwill (if they were close to the horse and/or had suitable arrangements for it's long term care) BUT don't expect a full refund. Talking to the sellers would be my first step.

I'd be more upset with the vet than the seller as they seller may have been unaware of the issue and a 5 stage vetting certainly should have picked up something so major (did you use your own vet/ independent vet or the sellers?)

Realistically any lengthy process trying to get lawyers involved will only cost you time, stress and money. As sad as it is if the horse can do some kind of job (light hacking) I'd put your efforts into selling him on, if not then either retire (if you have the space/ money) or PTS and move on.

Caveat emptor I believe is the legal position in England
 
Get the vet that diagnosed the "advanced arthritis in the spine" to consult the vetting vet.

Did you use the seller's vet?


Edit-
Just seen your earlier thread.....When was he 5* vetted? if you didn't have him vetted prior to purchase?
 
Last edited:
this should have been picked up in the vetting surely?

how long ago was the purchase vetting that gave the horse passed and how did the second vet diagnose advanced arthritis?..

doesn't this require x rays to determine?

Was horse showing symptoms of discomfort when jumping for you to bringing in the 2cnd vet for a diagnosis or how did it come about?

sorry for your position though. buying horses is a minefield and a lot of luck even when you think you've done the right thing with vetting. :(
 
Even with a private seller, the Sale of Goods Act applies so the horse should be as described ie if the ad stated that the horse did x, y or z then it should do those. Verbal conversations are are also covered but the problem is proving them when it comes to dispute - courts are not generally interested in 'he said, she said' type of claims.

In this case, it appears that you should be taking it with the vetting vet first - look at it from the sellers point of view, if a vet didn't spot the problem it is very likely that the sellers were unaware of it too and they cannot be (legally) held responsible for something that they didn't know or couldn't be reasonably be expected to know. If you suspect that they did know and treated the horse with something to hide this well, that's when you get the blood sample taken at vetting analysed. If it shows something that shouldn't be there, then you do have recourse under the SOGA and depending on the sale price (more or less than 5K?) you have various options for financial recourse. Or it could be that the back problems are new and treatable and you should have no problems claiming on your insurance with a recent 5 stage vetting cert or in worst case scenario, claiming LOU.

Did the intended rider try the horse before sale? As it could be that this rider is just too heavy for this horse - as we all know that there is no absolute formula that dictates what weight a horse can carry and perform well with - and that wouldn't be the sellers fault either, As animals, horses don't come with guarantees in the same way as cars or white goods because so many things are subjective.
 
OP you seem to have had a lot of 'recently purchased' horses this year, is this is the same 'recently purchased' 6 year old you posted about in April, it can't be the 'recently purchased' 9yo you talked about in January as you bought that from a dealer.
 
Amaranta said:
OP you seem to have had a lot of 'recently purchased' horses this year, is this is the same 'recently purchased' 6 year old you posted about in April, it can't be the 'recently purchased' 9yo you talked about in January as you bought that from a dealer.
Click to expand...

I've purchased three this year, why is it relevant how many recently purchased horses someone has?
 
Depends when you bought the horse really if it was April I doult you have any come back agaisnt the vet who did the vetting as its easily time for the issue to have started since purchase likewise its far to long ago to have come back agaisnt the owner .Was April the purchase /vetting date ?
 
Someone above has mentioned selling on - I totally disagree with this ! You have to think of the horse's welfare now, and if it is in a bad way, either retire or PTS. Selling on would be very unfair to what is, after all, a living animal, probably in some degree of pain.
 
No, we saw and tried the horse in mid-November, then the vet we were advised to use for the vetting was on holiday for two weeks then off sick, which delayed the purchase. The vetting took place a week before the horse arrived with us and he's now been in our yard for two weeks and a day, so it is all recent. He did not arrive with any injuries and we used a well-known transporter.

Yes, the seller and the vet both knew our intentions for the horse prior to purchase and he showed no signs of problems when my husband rode and jumped him at the trial.

Thanks for all the advice. We are going to talk to the seller and the vets and go from there......

(PS: With regards to the number of horses we purchase, that is our prerogative and has no bearing on why I posted my original question. We are an ordinary horsey family of four riders of different ages and levels, hence we buy horses).
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon11.gif
 
Twinkle Shy said:
Someone above has mentioned selling on -.
Click to expand...

It was me who suggested selling on, and I did that with the caveat that the horse was suitable for some type of useful work (light hacking). Arthritus will never get better but if the vet thinks he can have a useful life at a much slower pace of life than the OP bought him for why should they not sell on - clearly with full disclosure to the potential purchasers. He might make someone a lovely occasional hack?

If the OP doesn't want to keep him in retirement (given they've only had him a short time and therefore I guess not too much emotional attachment) their alternatives are sell or PTS, or loan I guess.
 
advanced arthritis doesn't materialise in only 2 weeks.

i would definitely make the original vet who passed the horse my first port of call. Then you would have to prove the original owner knew about this.
 
You definatly have the chance of recourse against the vet if the vetting was five stage , get the bloods run PDQ and make sure they look for the newer antinflammatories like Metacam as well as bute and Danilon.
Very very bad luck get some good legal advice from an equine specialist lawyer PDQ as well , hope you can get it resolved.
 
How did you discover the arthritis? I mean, I'm assuming you had the vet who has diagnosed it very recently, but what were the signs that told you you needed to get the vet? It seems odd that it was fine at viewing, fine at vetting, fine on arrival, and suddenly isn't fine. It might be worth getting another opinion, in case it's the second vet that's wrong rather than the first vet?
 
millymoose said:
No, we saw and tried the horse in mid-November, then the vet we were advised to use for the vetting was on holiday for two weeks then off sick, which delayed the purchase. The vetting took place a week before the horse arrived with us and he's now been in our yard for two weeks and a day, so it is all recent. He did not arrive with any injuries and we used a well-known transporter.

Yes, the seller and the vet both knew our intentions for the horse prior to purchase and he showed no signs of problems when my husband rode and jumped him at the trial.
Click to expand...

Ok, so first things first - time to get the blood sample analysed and see what the results say.

If they come back showing any meds you go straight to the seller.
If they come back clear you go to the vet( V1) that vetted the horse with a copy of the report from YOUR vet (V2) diagnosing the arthritis. You may find at this point that V1 suddenly runs lots of extra tests on the remainder of the blood sample ;) If you don't already have a copy of the report from V2 you need to get one ASAP. Hopefully as a horsey family you are already a gold member of the BHS and have access to the legal advice line - if not, join online tonight. I believe NFU also offer something similar to their members but I'm not sure of the details.

Depending on what the blood test results show and how V2 word their report, you may be taking legal action against either the seller or V1.
If it's the seller you would be looking at claiming under the SOGA act, not fit for purpose.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...anding-the-sale-of-goods-act/how-to-complain/
This is where the value of the claim comes into play - not just the cost of the horse, you may want to add all the associated expenses like livery, vets bills etc for the time you will have him. If the claim is under £5k you can use the small claims track of the Circuit Court which is very user friendly and relatively inexpensive. Over 5K claim however means using the Circuit Court which isn't as easy and you will probably need (paid for) legal advice the cost of which can be added to the claim. It is also worth looking at your home or car insurance as you might have legal cover included on one or both...

If you think V1 missed something on the vetting it wouldn't be a claim under the SOGA, probably you would claim under their professional insurance - I'm afraid I don't know much about that! - but I think that is where the way the V2 vet report was written would matter. This is where the BHS could be helpful but a specialist equine solicitor could give you a definitive answer.
 
Thank you so much for the help and advice.

Yesterday, we received a written copy of the vet's report which had been caught up in the festive post.

Attached to it, for reasons unknown to us, was a 'Client Record' sheet stating the Seller's name and address and showing that the horse we have purchased was injected intravenously with equipalazone on the 30th October (by a different vet from the same practice we used for our vetting) due to receiving a kick to his stifle at a show. He was then prescribed a 16-sachet course of the same medication which would have ended on the 7th November. My husband rode the horse on the 9th November, so surely we could not have picked up any lameness or back issues as the horse would still be under the effect of the bute, which we believe has a withdrawal period of 10 days.

The Seller has stated in writing of her "surprise that nothing showed-up when you tried him". We are not surprised at all now, as it would appear that my husband was in fact sitting on a doped horse.

Do we NOW have some recourse against the Seller with this information in our possession? We had bloods taken at the vetting but this was on 6/12/12 so we are not sure if anything will now show up or indeed if there is any point in paying to have the bloods tested when we have in writing that the horse had a course of bute from 30/10 - 7/11.

We have requested that the two vets discuss this case together and I have also made initial enquiries to two equine lawyers.

If anyone has anything constructive to add, we'd be grateful to hear from you.
 
i assume you've put all this new information come to light regarding the bute to the seller and have requested a refund bearing this info in mind?

what was their response?

Im afraid i really dont know what your position is in law on this although i would certainly think you'd have some case. How much it will cost you to pursue it through the small claims courts if the sellers wish to be stubborn is another matter though.

You've sought advise through equine lawyers you say. What is their opinion?
 
they should be back by now, most lawyers are.

Unless any lawyers on the forum can give you a legal view my thoughts are you really need to speak to one as a starting point on where you stand.

It very much seems though that this problem definitely pre existed and knowingly or not, was masked by the sellers.

I have heard stories of this being an old con trick used by dealers before. ie: cause an minor injury and bute it to mask a more serious one. I would be hugely suspicious under these circs.

sorry you're having such a hard time with this though. :(
 
Last edited:
Thanks, will chase the lawyers, although we are still hoping not to have to go down that route! Am also a gold BHS member, so will consult them in the morning too.

We are genuinely heartbroken about this, as he is a lovely horse, just not fit for the job we need him for. We can't believe the seemingly lovely family who sold him would mask these injuries deliberately. But the fact is they have, knowingly or not, and I guess in law it's the facts that matter....

Thanks again for the help.
 
Given you have proof of bute it may be possible to avoid the cost of running tests for now.
I would want to know why this wasn't disclosed earlier if being vetted by the same practice?
 
Exactly when was this horse advertised? If they advertised it while it was on bute, I would be very suspicious. TBH if they didn't tell you he had been injured so recently I would also smell a rat. That must have been some kick to require that much treatment.
 
While I'm not certain I *think* bute leaves the system relatively quickly - the horse was vetted 4 weeks after the prescribed bute by my reckoning - a question to ask V2? And still test the bloods as there could be other meds showing.

It does seem that the sellers weren't upfront at the time when your husband tried the horse but it could be that it genuinely didn't occur to them to mention it. However that does mean that if the dispute comes to court you do have a case that you didn't have a fair trial because of their omission to mention recent/current treatment that may have changed your decision to purchase the horse if you had known about it. Also, under the SOGA it is assumed that any faults (unless the seller can prove that the buyers actions/omissions ie not servicing a car when it was due or in the case of a horse not having their feet done!) in the first 6 months after purchase were present at the time of sale. Now, this doesn't mean that you are entitled to an automatic full refund - just that the seller has has to repair or offer the difference in value (very basic explanation, there are other recourses have a look at the link in my previous post).

What you do now is to decide what outcome you want

Return the horse and get a full refund? You might find that a letter stating the facts very clearly and unemotionally gets that result with minimal cost. BHS should be able to help with the wording.

Return the horse and get a full refund inc all costs incurred? Vetting fee, any other vet costs, livery etc. That will probably incur legal costs as most people will baulk at paying out more than they got IYSWIM...and the sellers may not actually have the cash to pay so legal action becomes more likely.

Keep the horse and get a partial refund? This might be easier for the sellers to swallow/afford but then you have another horse to keep until you rehome (and that's not cheap!) with full disclosure of his problems.

It also appears that you used the sellers vet for the vetting - they obviously didn't mention the prescribed bute at the time of vetting? - so it looks like they are desperately trying to CYA now there is a dispute. It might be worth asking a solicitor/BHS if they should have disclosed this at the time of vetting and by not doing so are they liable in some way?

Before you go hell for leather on legal action and start spending even more money, you need to think about whether the sellers can or will pay. You can win a claim in the County Court easily enough if the facts are right but actually getting the money can be difficult and incur further costs - the seller pleading poverty and paying off at £5 pw for ever more or you could have to pay bailiff costs to enforce the judgement and meanwhile you are still maintaining a horse that you don't want/isn't yours!

IIWY, I think that I would push for a full refund of the purchase price and returning the horse just to end the matter rather than starting on potentially expensive and lengthy legal action for the sake of a few hundred quid. Unfair I know.
 
Last edited:
I would also be suspitious as to why the same vet practice that was treating the horse also vetted the horse. I no some people do do this but i personally wouldnt. If the seller asked for you to use this vet practice that would make me think the def knew there was problem
 
Was there any marks of a kick on the stifle when you viewed the horse? I would be very suspicious of this situation. There would surely be some swelling or cut if this accident had happened. It is a criminal offence to dope a horse with the intention of hiding a problem and it sounds very much like this is what has happened. You need to speak to a good lawyer. Why were the people selling the horse, how many horses a year do they sell, are you sure they are private and not a dealer in disguise. Anyone who sells more than 2 horses a year is classed as a dealer as Mr Taxman would be interested in their profit.

Please let us know how you get on.
 
It was the sellers who recommended you use their vet for the vetting, wasn't it? If so, to recommend you use a vet, who they have also used to dope the horse up with bute prior to you trying it, would be daft! (If it was intended to knowingly sell on a lame horse).

Perhaps the arthritis really wasn't noticeable when the horse was with them, either due to workload or weight of their rider? Or perhaps it only showed up a slight resistance/unwillingness to work, which some riders just wouldn't pick up on?

Would the intravenous bute and further supplies have provided a sufficient anti-inflammatory effect to reduce the symptoms of arthritis for some time after the bute wore off, therefore affecting the result of the vetting? Hopefully the vet should be able to say whether this is possible or not.

I'm thinking perhaps they sold the horse lame through ignorance rather than malicious intent.

However, they *did* let you try the horse whilst buted up and you bought it on the basis of that performance, as well as the vetting. So even if the vetting wouldn't have been affected by the bute, I think they should give you a refund.

Which rider rode at the vetting, yours or theirs? I'm wondering if the horse can tolerate the heavier weight occasionally but when its a daily occurance its too much. Also if their rider ride at the vetting then you didn't have a chance to try the horse at any point without it being buted up.

If your rider rode at the vetting (and if the vetting wasn't affected by the bute given for the kick), then it either comes down to the vet missing symptoms of arthritis or the horse not displaying any. To try to prove that the vet missed symptoms, I think you'd have to firstly get the blood sample checked, to make sure the sellers didn't keep some bute back from the last injury and give it to the horse the day you arrived to trial it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top