Using the seller's vet?

[ghostie]

As per the title really - I always used to think that you weren't meant to use the seller's vet, but have now read that the rules have been changed so that their vet has to disclose anything they know about the horse to you, so it's better to use their vet.

I'm buying a horse where I don't actually know any of the local vets, but the one that comes well recommended is also the same vet that the owner has used the whole time that she has had him.

What are people's experiences and opinions please? My inclination is to use the seller's vet, especially as the horse has a minor splint which he has apparently never been lame with, but the vet should know if he was. I do trust the owner as she has been very honest and upfront and is very nice but better to be safe than sorry. When I called the vet they said that if I give the owners name and address they will pull the horses records up to give to the vet.

Thanks so much

 

[smiffyimp]

I was advised by my vets 6 yrs ago to use the sellers vet for this very reason. She gave me his records to read before she started the vetting - he was only 2 so it consisted of castration records and vaccinations. She did a very thorough job, warned me of a couple of things (sarcoids that might arise - and did!) but was very truthful and said he was a super horse.
The only time I wouldnt if I bought again, is if I could use my own vet who I have known and trusted for a long time

 

[Shipley]

I always use my vet and pay his travelling expenses as he knows what I want (yes sent him half way across uk too!) but I would ask for a print out of vets visits as this has always been an option if they wont give to me/vet or owner says no I walk away.

 

[ghostie]

Thanks for your opinions, that's really helpful.

I've had a break from horse ownership so don't have an equine vet I know and trust (doubt my cat's vet would be much use!) so it's a bit tricky all round!

 

[CBFan]

I've done this once... I'm in herts, horse was in North Wales so used the local practice which happened to be their regular vets.. Horse failed on TINY sarcoids hidden under a thick winter coat... so yes, they were VERY thorough.

When you employ them to do a vetting YOU are their client and I think when they already know the horse, it is not worth their livlihood not to be thorough!

 

[Chloe-V]

Most of my youngsters tend to be sold to people from other parts of the country and a lot of them choose to use my own vet for vettings.

I can assure you he is very much working for the buyer on the day and will 'turn the horse inside out' so to speak. He's always very thorough and gives a full and honest history when they ask.

I'm sure all reputable vets would do this.

 

[Birker2020]

I've used the sellers vet on one occasion the other five times I have used my own vet but you have to be prepared to pay for travel costs on top of the vetting price if its a distance away and you use your own vet.

I've always preferred to use my own vet simply for the fact that this vet will be the one who will be seeing my horse in the future so I'd like to think that they would be able to remember any problems/queries the vetting threw up (if any were present) afterwards.

 

[MeganLindsx]

Use their vet... you can ask for the horse's medical history and by law they should tell you.

Whether or not its the whole truth is yet to be seen

 

[PennyJ]

Sometimes, especially if you're buying locally, the seller's vet is also your vet.... So not much choice, unless you want to go with a complete randomer!

The one time I was in this situation, pony was thoroughly vetted and passed.

 

[Spook]

Can an examining vet not request the vet history from the vendors vet?. Maybe they cannot, I don't know. If there is nothing to hide fine, if not available smell a rat. Personally I don't like the vendors vet doing the vetting and prefer either our own or an independant to do the job.

 

[Tamski]

I've just had a similar thing. Sellers vet is also my vet so I used them for the vetting. The only other good thing was that my preferred vet hadn't actually seen the horse as he was always seen by a different vet at the same practise. I think I got the best of both worlds as the practise had to disclose his history but the get had no actual history with the yard or the horse so went in with fresh eyes.

He passed with flying colours. Good luck with your search but in my experience vets have always been very professional

 

[Racergirl]

This happens to us quite a lot, AFAIK its not "rules" that you have to disclose a horses history to the buyer - if (and only if!) the seller is happy for you to disclose the horses history, then you can - but the history "belongs" to the owner of the horse, and as such cannot be disclosed without their permission. Likewise, we cant ring another practice and ask for history on a horse that we are going to vet - without the owners permission,nothing can be disclosed.

We wont do a vetting on a clients horse if we dont have permission to disclose anything we know about it - if the owner says no it puts us as a practice in an impossible situation,so we just straight wont do it. Tamski's situation is the best IMO - fresh eyes and all the history !!

 

[Goldenstar]

recently I bought a horse who was looked after by the vets I use . They are a big practice so a vet that I and the vendor had never used did the vetting and the vendor gave permission for him to look over all the horses records.

 

[Spook]

This happens to us quite a lot, AFAIK its not "rules" that you have to disclose a horses history to the buyer - if (and only if!) the seller is happy for you to disclose the horses history, then you can - but the history "belongs" to the owner of the horse, and as such cannot be disclosed without their permission. Likewise, we cant ring another practice and ask for history on a horse that we are going to vet - without the owners permission,nothing can be disclosed.

We wont do a vetting on a clients horse if we dont have permission to disclose anything we know about it - if the owner says no it puts us as a practice in an impossible situation,so we just straight wont do it. Tamski's situation is the best IMO - fresh eyes and all the history !!

Interseting re the veterinary history belonging to the owner/seller, so technically the sellers vet does not have to divulge the horses history if they are doing the vetting?

I understand that being asked puts a vet on the spot....... form both a loyalty to the long term client and a moral point of view.

Is this a messy piece of legislation or just an old wives tale that the vet records be divulged by the sellers examining vet.??

 

[Spook]

Just to add I'm not for a moment suggesting that any vet would examine and not divulge information known to them...... but the situation is open to interpretation.

 

[Murphy88]

A vet can only divulge the history if the seller has given permission, hence it can leave a vet in an awkward position if they know the history but cannot say anything. However on the new vetting forms there are boxes for the vet to tick which ask if they know any prior history of the horse, and whether in their opinion this history will / will not / might affect the horse in the future. Now obviously if a seller has refused to allow vet to disclose history then the buyer probably needs to ask themselves what the seller is hiding!

 

[Spook]

So is the onus on the purchaser to ask the right questions?? of the vet and the seller?

 

[Racergirl]

A vet can only divulge the history if the seller has given permission, hence it can leave a vet in an awkward position if they know the history but cannot say anything. However on the new vetting forms there are boxes for the vet to tick which ask if they know any prior history of the horse, and whether in their opinion this history will / will not / might affect the horse in the future. Now obviously if a seller has refused to allow vet to disclose history then the buyer probably needs to ask themselves what the seller is hiding!

this basically !!

(and the words - "well if they wont let us tell you, then it does make you wonder why...." have been known to be used in conversation...)

 

[Spook]

So is the onus on the purchaser to ask the right questions?? of the vet and the seller?

So the answer is "Yes" is it not? Racergirl.

 

[ILuvCowparsely]

As per the title really - I always used to think that you weren't meant to use the seller's vet, but have now read that the rules have been changed so that their vet has to disclose anything they know about the horse to you, so it's better to use their vet.

I'm buying a horse where I don't actually know any of the local vets, but the one that comes well recommended is also the same vet that the owner has used the whole time that she has had him.

What are people's experiences and opinions please? My inclination is to use the seller's vet, especially as the horse has a minor splint which he has apparently never been lame with, but the vet should know if he was. I do trust the owner as she has been very honest and upfront and is very nice but better to be safe than sorry. When I called the vet they said that if I give the owners name and address they will pull the horses records up to give to the vet.

Thanks so much

Yes i have done

both my horses were fom wales over 4 hrs away so both times i used
1 sellers vet
2 a local horse vet where horse stabled and got report sent through

 

[Racergirl]

So the answer is "Yes" is it not? Racergirl.

Id take that as a given regardless of if the horse was being vetted or not !!! People can still lie though - just because you ask a question, doesnt nececcarily follow that the answer will be the whole truth...

 

[tessy]

this is very interesting, I had read an article a few months ago and thought it was saying that the purchaser can ask seller's vet for history irrelevant whether the seller had given permission. sooo the seller does have to give permission? but like you say there are no benefits to saying no as the buyer will be suspicious.
another point is.... If a purchaser buys the horse with the full clinical history and say at some point he had cellulitis in leg from mudfever or an unexplained lameness 2 yrs previous for a few days or a cough for a week, a bout of colic because was kept in and ate too much dry hay etc etc, all these things were minor and of no long term problems.
the purchaser should disclose all of these to a new insurance company as previous medical history. If not and there is a note on your vet records to say that you had a copy of history then you could get insurance companies refusing to pay claims as regard as pre exisiting??
something to watch out for??