very upset and disapointed

all about Romeo

all about Romeo

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 April 2012
Messages
486
Visit site
After making the difficult decision to loan my horse out over the summer (due to my injury and he is 9 and was in retirement due to my circumstance) I have found he has lost lots of weight, is covered in scars and has a massive splint that is healing!!
I made a very in depth and detailed contract and have checked on him frequently... and in the space of 2 months (coming to the end of the contract so thought I could relax alittle) to find said horse in abit of a state! (though still reasonably happy, bright eyed and nice coat)

so informed said person that I would be contacting my vet (vet did attend said horse when injury first occured) and told vet that I was not happy with the way injury was heeling and could the vet please go back out and check said horse which vet said she would happily do later this week (he is not lame) so I contacted the loaner to arrange for a convenient day and time for vet to attend, to be told that the loaner was not prepaired to pay any more vet fees!! :mad:
(loaner has got insurance for the horse) I promply replied with " you will pay vet fees as it says so in the contract!!" and have since sought legal advice...

The horse was under the loaners care when the injury occured and so I don`t think I am being unreasonable??

The horse will be coming home sooner then the end of the contract now but where do I stand regarding ongoing vet treatment for the injury when he comes home? do I then become liable for vets fees once he is back under my care? or is the loaner still liable for any ongoing treatment if he needs it?

Really annoyed as I trusted this person and dont feel like they have kept me up to date with my horses condition and welfare.
 
after your discussion with the vet, does the vet feel he needs to come back out? If he comes out and says he thinks it's fine and will heal by itself than as it was your decision to get him I feel you should pay the bill. But if he comes out and the horse needs further treatment then the loaner is definitly liable! What is the injury?
 
if you allow them to end the contract (and for the safety of the horse i don't think you have a choice) i still reckon its your vets bill. i will still speak to them about it as i dont understand why they wont claim on their insurance
 
galaxy said:
after your discussion with the vet, does the vet feel he needs to come back out? If he comes out and says he thinks it's fine and will heal by itself than as it was your decision to get him I feel you should pay the bill. But if he comes out and the horse needs further treatment then the loaner is definitly liable! What is the injury?
Click to expand...

I discussed the injury with the loaner when I went to see the horse and I said that I was conserned that the injury was not healing properly. The loaner agreed that the vet should come back out and have a look at the injury and assess whether it is healing ok or needs more treatment.
I am not entirely sure what is going on with the injury (he aparantly had an accident in the stable which resulted in the horse banging its leg and having a big swelling which has become hard and I fear turning into a splint) (the swelling is very big and the injury is over a month old now)
 
jools1234 said:
if you allow them to end the contract (and for the safety of the horse i don't think you have a choice) i still reckon its your vets bill. i will still speak to them about it as i dont understand why they wont claim on their insurance
Click to expand...

Why should I pay the vets bill when there is a contract in place clearly stating that the loaner is liable to pay all vets fees if the horse is sick or injured whilst under the loaners care (vet also agrees that the loaner should pay the vets bill) the loaner doesnt want to pay the excess on the insurance.
 
jools1234 said:
if you allow them to end the contract (and for the safety of the horse i don't think you have a choice)
Click to expand...

Of course I am willing and happy to have him back! like I said I didnt really want to loan him out in the first place.
I just feel very upset and disapointed to find my horse like that.
 
Apart from the issues of loss of weight etc. I think you are over reacting slightly regarding the splint. The loaner did get a vet to look at the splint in the first place, by your own admission the horse is not lame, so one has to assume the splint is not causing issues (Very few do after the initial trauma).

I am not clear why you feel the vet should visit again and if you are getting the horse back anyway, and it is sound, what is the issue? I can understand that they would not want to get the vet out again, I imagine that they have some sort of excess on the insurance and a vet visit just to say what has already been said will probably be payable by themselves and not the insurance company.

Splints are a (usually) a harmless occurrence that can occur with any horse that is kept in the very best possible manner. Just one of those things. However, loss of weight and the numerous scars you mention are another matter, but as you say yourself, the horse does seem bright eyed and bushy tailed.

I would just get him home, cut your losses, and next time (if there is one!) keep up the visits even towards the end of the contract.
 
A splint is a splint and could've happened in the field. If it is a splint then it is unlikely to go down anytime soon, and if the horse is sound then normally you carry on like normal which is possibly what the vet has told the loaner and why they don't want to pay for more vets fees. A splint is not an on going issue unless there are complications, which if the horse is sound would suggest there aren't, and so yes, I think you are being unreasonable.
 
Having been in your shoes its easier to just pay up & leave it at that, sounds like the priority is to get your horse home before the siltation deteriorates even further.
 
grumpyoldmare said:
Apart from the issues of loss of weight etc. I think you are over reacting slightly regarding the splint. The loaner did get a vet to look at the splint in the first place, by your own admission the horse is not lame, so one has to assume the splint is not causing issues (Very few do after the initial trauma).

I am not clear why you feel the vet should visit again and if you are getting the horse back anyway, and it is sound, what is the issue? I can understand that they would not want to get the vet out again, I imagine that they have some sort of excess on the insurance and a vet visit just to say what has already been said will probably be payable by themselves and not the insurance company.

Splints are a (usually) a harmless occurrence that can occur with any horse that is kept in the very best possible manner. Just one of those things. However, loss of weight and the numerous scars you mention are another matter, but as you say yourself, the horse does seem bright eyed and bushy tailed.

I would just get him home, cut your losses, and next time (if there is one!) keep up the visits even towards the end of the contract.
Click to expand...



I dont know for sure that the injury will result in a splint, I am not sure what is going on with the injury.
I do not think the injury is healing properly so wanted (and loaner agreed) to get the vet to have another look to make sure that everything is healing ok... I have never had a horse with a splint before so am new to whats normal healing signs but my gut says its not right.
definatly not letting him go out on loan again.
 
Nugget La Poneh said:
A splint is a splint and could've happened in the field. If it is a splint then it is unlikely to go down anytime soon, and if the horse is sound then normally you carry on like normal which is possibly what the vet has told the loaner and why they don't want to pay for more vets fees. A splint is not an on going issue unless there are complications, which if the horse is sound would suggest there aren't, and so yes, I think you are being unreasonable.
Click to expand...

I dont know for sure that it will result in a splint.
I know what the vet has told the loaner as I have spoken to the vet.
The horse is not lame but he is not 100% sound when troted up and he is not in pain when I touch the lump and it is not hot either.
 
As the others have said regarding the vet's bills - as soon as he is back in your care the loaner isn't liable for anything. If you took legal action and said that the injury took place in their care and now you are left with bills then i am certain they could get away with it fairly easily.

Unfortunately loan agreements aren't really worth much more than the paper they are written on and unless you have got a lot of money behind you and a stubborn nature these sorts of things aren't worth pursuing.

Get him home, sort him out and be glad that it is coming to an end.
 
If the loaner doesn't want to pay for another vets visit then pay half of the costs of a visit to get your horse checked out. At least that way you will know what you are dealing with when you take him back on and the loaner isn't having to pay out for a vet bill for a horse that she wont have any more, which is probably what is stopping her from getting the vet back out. Unforunately that is how alot of people think about loan horses and wont spend money on vets bills on someone elses horse, especially if the contract is coming to an end.
 
and has a massive splint that is healing!!

I am even more confused now, in your original post you said the above? Now you are saying you don't even know if it is a splint, or may result in a splint?

You said quite categorically that it is a healing splint, now apparently you do not know what the injury is?:confused:

If you intend to argue this point and liability with the loaner you really need to be very precise and clear in your accusations and claims against her.
 
If I was in the loaners position and I had got the vet out previously and been told it was ok and the horse is sound I would refuse to pay for the visit too. It is you that wants the visit because you are inexperienced with the type of injury, that is not the loaners fault Having dealt with splint type injuries before swelling is common long after the initial injury and initial injuries are far too easy for it to be down to bad ownership.

Weight could be due to the sudden drop in temperature. Scars depends on what where and how bad but like other people have said get him home and cut your losses.

whatever the answer I am sorry for your situation. xx
 
grumpyoldmare said:
and has a massive splint that is healing!!

I am even more confused now, in your original post you said the above? Now you are saying you don't even know if it is a splint, or may result in a splint?

You said quite categorically that it is a healing splint, now apparently you do not know what the injury is?:confused:

If you intend to argue this point and liability with the loaner you really need to be very precise and clear in your accusations and claims against her.
Click to expand...

I think its a splint but I dont know for sure thats why I wanted to get the vet back out, I am not making any accusations against the loaner just think they should pay all the vet costs to do with this injury until it is healed and or we know exactly whats going on with it (if it has a freign body in it or it is definatly a splint ect)
 
To be perfectly honest, I'd count your blessings and get him home. I did the same as you but loaner left my mare in with one that tried to kill her- and sent her home while I was working away with this on her leg

AE5FF0DD-DB75-4A52-AC94-F68B0B3643A2-1112-000001042E8E3B82.jpg


And expressed mild sympathy and embarrassment when she called a week later to see how she was, to be told she ha been PTS as the original vet (her vet) hadn't checked properly and bites her up- under another injury on a hind leg was a cracked cannon bone. Infection set in, I had no other option.

She was my pride and joy, my first and the dam of my fantastic youngster, I thought I was doing right by her- I was left with a dead mare and a £1500 bill- then had to argue with her vet as she put the first callout in my name!! I did not pay the bill- the partner in the practice wrote it off in the end.
 
What did the vet say first visit out? This is what it would hinge on for me. If the horse is sound then you want the vet out not the current 'owner'. This is to me not a routine 'they should pay for the vet', they have already paid for the vet, it is your satisfaction you are expecting them to pay for which IMO is unfair.
 
Batgirl said:
If I was in the loaners position and I had got the vet out previously and been told it was ok and the horse is sound I would refuse to pay for the visit too. It is you that wants the visit because you are inexperienced with the type of injury, that is not the loaners fault Having dealt with splint type injuries before swelling is common long after the initial injury and initial injuries are far too easy for it to be down to bad ownership.

Weight could be due to the sudden drop in temperature. Scars depends on what where and how bad but like other people have said get him home and cut your losses.

whatever the answer I am sorry for your situation. xx
Click to expand...

I want the vet back out because I dont think the injury is healing properly and when I spoke to the vet she also thinks it is a good idea to come out and check the injury (loaner now agrees that this is a sensible thing to do)
and if the vet says it is healing well then thats great but if further treatment is needed (which is what I suspect) then I think the loaner should be liable to cover the vets fees.
She signed the contract stating she would be liable for all vet fees whilst the horse was in the loaner care and surely the contract should be uphelled otherwise what was the point in having it in the first place?
TBH when all is said and done my horses welfare is my priority not contracts and money.
 
I think your over reacting massively!!! And if I was the loaner I wouldn't pay either. And if I was in your position I wouldnt be expecting the loaner to pay either as it's for your peace of mind
 
Kelly1982 said:
I think your over reacting massively!!! And if I was the loaner I wouldn't pay either. And if I was in your position I wouldnt be expecting the loaner to pay either as it's for your peace of mind
Click to expand...

The vet should have been called back out sooner but it has taken for me to have to say the vet needs to come back out and check that injury for it to be done.
 
all about Romeo said:
and if the vet says it is healing well then thats great but if further treatment is needed (which is what I suspect) then I think the loaner should be liable to cover the vets fees.
Click to expand...

This is the key bit, I would make an agreement that you pay for the visit if the vet says all OK and loaner pays is further treatment needed. Hope all is OK xx

though you obviously have the best attitude RE contracts and welfare so fingers crossed for you xx
 
I know you must be upset about the condition of your horse but it does sound like you are over reacting. If she was delivered to you tomorrow and the loan over would you still have the vet out??

With respect most vets if you telephoned them to say you were slightly concerned about a previously dealt with injury would agree to come out, after all they are getting paid :)

I understand your concern but just get your horse home and put it down to experience.
At least loaner got a vet to your horse initially, many loans have gone badly wrong for people and sounds like your loaner was not negligent at all in my opinion.
 
Batgirl said:
This is the key bit, I would make an agreement that you pay for the visit if the vet says all OK and loaner pays is further treatment needed. Hope all is OK xx

though you obviously have the best attitude RE contracts and welfare so fingers crossed for you xx
Click to expand...

Thank you x

I was just shocked, upset and disapointed by the whole situation and though my horse doesnt seem very bothered I feel bad that things have got like this x
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top