Vetting Worry - Agent not allowing me to use her vet.

[grhands]

Hi everyone.

I’m in the very tedious process of buying my dream horse and it seems like one hiccup after another. To be honest the agent isn’t being the friendliest which isn’t helping!

I found a lovely horse an hour and a half from me so too far for my vet to go. I booked a vet that my own vet recommend that is closer to her.

When I told the seller which vet I was using she said I couldn’t use that particular vet, as it was the practice she is registered with and it was a conflict of interest.

Now if anyone wanted to use my vet to buy a horse off of me it wouldn’t bother me. Is this normal? I’m wondering if there’s some reason that the seller doesn’t want me to use her vet. Could it be that they have to disclose prior knowledge of the animal?

The seller has offered to get the horse vetted for me with someone else.

This is just feeling like a bit of a !!

What do you all think? I’m not one who buys a lot of horses! The last one was fifteen years ago!

Thanks very much.

 

[cauda equina]

This is entirely normal and the seller is doing the right thing
Ask your own vet for another recommendation.
If you're worried that the seller might be trying to hide things you could ask for a copy of the horse's vet records

 

[ycbm]

It is normal to avoid conflicts of interest and very much in your own interest to do that. You don't want the horse vetted by someone who has a lot to lose if they fail the horse.

If it is a sole operator, just tell her you will use another vet of your choosing. If it's a multiple vet practice they are well used to this and should send a vet who doesn't have a close connection with her.

Do ask her for the records from the horse's own vet, which may not be the agent's vet, to be released to you and if she won't then walk away.
.

 

[94lunagem]

Absolutely normal to avoid any conflict of interest, the seller is giving you the right messages and I don't see as a red flag, quite the opposite.

If its a large enough practice they should be able to send another vet, but otherwise ask your own vet for recommendations or what they think about the seller's alternative suggestions.

 

[gallopingby]

It is usual for the sellers vet not to be used. They have to state on the vetting form if there is a connection between any parties. If your vet has suggested a suitable vet and it’s also the sellers vet that wouldn’t worry me, maybe means they’re on the ball re the best in the area! It would be sensible to ask for vet records, just remember there might not be any other than vaccinations. I had someone query this once as to why no records - answer because horse has never needed to see a vet other than routine jags!!!

 

[grhands]

Thanks everyone for your support. I genuinely didn’t know if this was normal or something of concern so I really appreciate your input.

Gemma xx

 

[nutjob]

Don't take the seller up on their offer to have the horse vetted for you - organise and pay for your own vetting. I also recommend attending the vetting in person.

If you use the sellers vet then they do have to disclose any relevant information which is sometimes a good thing. If you can get all the vet records then this would be good but if they are only from the time the horse has been in the custody of the agent, not really useful.

The buying through an agent thing is fraught with issues anyway. You don't get the legal rights that you would have if buying from a dealer, essentially it's a private sale. The agent very likely doesn't know the horse much at all and it's hard to get answers to simple questions as they can truthfully say they don't know, or 'not since we've had him' ie in the last 2 weeks. I've recently viewed a horse which had been dumped in sales livery where the person showing the horse didn't even know it's name!

There's bound to be other reasonable vets in the area which you can use, but if you are having doubts, make sure you go on at least one of the dodgy dealer facebook pages and make your own post, anonymously if necessary asking info about the agent.

 

[Lady Jane]

I would pay the travel costs for my own vet if its 1.5hrs, its much easier to discuss issues if you have a relationship with the person. The agent is right, you shouldn't use her vet

 

[ihatework]

I wouldn't be too worried, but I would ask for permission to receive the horses veterinary record from the vet she is objecting to. Just in case ....

 

[poiuytrewq]

If the seller was forcing you to use only her vet that would to me signify a possible problem. However she is making you do the correct thing and get a vet who knows neither horse or seller, will be working solely on your behalf and will give a totally unbiased opinion.

 

[poiuytrewq]

If you put the horses location on here i bet someone would be able to reccommend a vet to use.

 

[paddy555]

I would pay the travel costs for my own vet if its 1.5hrs, its much easier to discuss issues if you have a relationship with the person. The agent is right, you shouldn't use her vet

I would pay for my own vet to go especially if you have a good horse vet. If the horse does turn out to have a problem they will be the ones who have to deal with it and may be able now to give you a better prognosis (if they pass it) .

 

[stormox]

Normal practice not to use seller's vet. The seller is entirely correct.

 

[foxy1]

I am going against most replies here to say I would absolutely use the sellers vet for full access to vet records. At the very least I would do as suggested above and ask for records relating to the horse, as it seems a bit odd that the seller is adamant, if the vet is willing to carry out the vetting.

 

[MidChristmasCrisis]

I just paid my vet to travel out of his area to do my girls vetting.

 

[Cowpony]

Our vet practice won't do a vetting if the horse is on their books. I also had a vet practice refuse to do a vetting on the basis that they'd treated the horse on referral from the usual vets. They were both multi-vet practices.

 

[ester]

I am going against most replies here to say I would absolutely use the sellers vet for full access to vet records. At the very least I would do as suggested above and ask for records relating to the horse, as it seems a bit odd that the seller is adamant, if the vet is willing to carry out the vetting.

This, I’m surprised at the replies, I don’t think this was the case historically but I think they can’t withold info/records they have now.

Obviously if the vets say no then no, but that’s not the sellers call

 

[foxy1]

Agree Ester; the vet saying no is one thing, but the seller saying no, is quite another........

 

[sport horse]

The sellers vet CAN vet the horse but only if the seller agrees to all the horses vet records being disclosed. The fact the seller is trying to stop you using their vet would raise alarm bells to me.

 

[ester]

SH you said it better!

 

[Ample Prosecco]

The sellers vet CAN vet the horse but only if the seller agrees to all the horses vet records being disclosed. The fact the seller is trying to stop you using their vet would raise alarm bells to me.

This! Everyone is correct in saying that the seller should not ASK you to use her vet (run a mile...) but it is quite different to saying you are not allowed to use her vet. Buyer asked to use my own vet to vet Dolly because buyer wanted to quiz him about the sarcoid treatment. There was absolutely no reason for my vet to say no - as long as I agreed. Which I did. It is not a conflict of interest - the vet is acting for the buyer and owes nothing to the seller in that context.

 

[Red-1]

I had one vetted by the seller's vet, it was a big vet hospital and the records were being disclosed.

The bog red flag for me though, is that the seller wants to find you a vet! Noooo, find your own!

 

[Patterdale]

I wouldn’t let someone use my vet to vet a horse I was selling, simply because I’d be worried that if it went lame a month later they’d accuse us of being in cahoots or make posts on Facebook saying I’d insisted on them using my vet etc. I’m sure my vet would refuse too for the same reasons.

People can be nuts, you have to protect yourself sadly. I’d have no issues disclosing records though, but be aware that that means nothing because unscrupulous yards get horses treated under different names.

 

[minesadouble]

I'm reading the original post as it's the Agent's Vet and not the owner's Vet that the Agent is reluctant to have perform the inspection in which case there would be no access to Veterinary history and Patterdale's post above may be more relevant.

Apologies if I've read this wrong and it is the actual owner's Vet.

 

[Melody Grey]

If your own vet has recommended who to get to vet, I’d go with that.

Vets should have integrity enough to pass an honest opinion on whether the horse is fit for your purpose on that day, and if they don’t, that’s one to take up with the BEVA.

I have paid for my own vet to go further away, but there’s going to be a limit on just how far they can go, especially if it’s a busy practice.

Could the vendor bring the horse closer to you to an equestrian centre or the like for a vetting? You also get to see it load and travel that way. Depends how desperate they are for the sale I guess!

I would always ask for vet records to be sent to my vet prior and if they refuse, run don’t walk!!

Good luck. I hope you find a solution with the outcome you want!!

 

[Melody Grey]

To add, I would allow a purchaser to use my vet if they wished, though I would make it clear to all parties that this was the case. Whether the vet would want to do the vetting is a different question!

 

[poiuytrewq]

I am going against most replies here to say I would absolutely use the sellers vet for full access to vet records. At the very least I would do as suggested above and ask for records relating to the horse, as it seems a bit odd that the seller is adamant, if the vet is willing to carry out the vetting.

I’m pretty sure previous vet records are not ethically allowed to be taken into account for a vetting, maybe unless specifically arranged.
A vetting is more a snap shot of the horses suitability on the day for the job.
It’s past is it’s past. Right or wrong.

 

[4Hoofed]

To be honest I don’t find the fact they don’t want a conflict of interest alarming. If you’re concerned that they are hiding something., As a seller in the past I’ve always allowed vet records to be sent to the vetting vet/new vet/owner/insurance company. So that’s what I’d ask for that horses records to be sent to your vet perverting. If they object to that I’d not bother vetting and walk away.

 

[nutjob]

I’m pretty sure previous vet records are not ethically allowed to be taken into account for a vetting, maybe unless specifically arranged.

They are allowed, in fact they are obligated to do so. If you use the sellers vet the vet has to disclose that this is the case, if the seller has 'forgotten' to mention this and also has to disclose anything in the veterinary record which affects the ability of the horse to do the stated job in the future. I have used a sellers vet in the past.

I am currently trying to arrange a vetting of a new horse and my own vet has explicitly stated they will not vet a horse where the owner is a client, that's their own choice. Luckily it's not the case as there is not much option in my area.

 

[poiuytrewq]

They are allowed, in fact they are obligated to do so. If you use the sellers vet the vet has to disclose that this is the case, if the seller has 'forgotten' to mention this and also has to disclose anything in the veterinary record which affects the ability of the horse to do the stated job in the future. I have used a sellers vet in the past.

I am currently trying to arrange a vetting of a new horse and my own vet has explicitly stated they will not vet a horse where the owner is a client, that's their own choice. Luckily it's not the case as there is not much option in my area.

Oh ok I stand Corrected. I thought they were not allowed to disclose previous issues as at that time the client was a different person (the seller)