Watchdog!

[MerrySherryRider]

Weebarney absolutely nothing wrong with being inexperienced but frustrated at people who walk blindly into buying a horse without using common sense and even worse, renting a field/DIY with no support.

I'm fed up with the novice who wanted a cheap as chips horse from a horse market, but thought nothing of going on holiday 4 times a year and driving a new Audi. She quickly ended up being taken to hospital by air ambulance.
And the first time owners recently who bought 4 year old ponies for their small children only to find they are 18 months old.

All avoidable mistakes. Sure, even knowledgeable people get a bad deal sometimes, but some errors are avoidable.

Even the inexperienced buyer can gain clues on a dealers yard by looking around and listening to a dealer too ready to sell anything as long as they don't leave empty handed.
Paying someone knowledgeable to oversee a purchase, can prevent an expensive mistake.

 

[flyingfeet]

I actually thought the watchdog piece was badly done, and at no point did they try getting a refund to see whether he really was dodgy

The vetting redwings did with scoping and xrays would have been in excess of £600 which is just not going to fly on a horse valued around £1,500

I think the dealer probably was dodgy, but if there are people out there looking for cheap ponies then there is always going to be a market.

When I was attempting to sell a 16 year old (homebred) for £1,500 I was pretty horrified with the potential buyers and took her off the market.

I think the piece was biased and should have included a check list for people buying their first horse (i.e. get a basic vetting). From the dealers reaction to watchdog, he wanted to sit down and sort it out, yet they wouldn't let him! Other properly dodgy traders do a runner

 

[Janeuk1]

I actually thought the watchdog piece was badly done, and at no point did they try getting a refund to see whether he really was dodgy

As I said in my previous post - I did try to get a refund and it wasnt as easy and straight forward as David Thomas makes out on the programme. I had a lot of problems and he wasnt very pleasant about it.
His terms also state that they make a deduction if you retun an unsuitable horse - so he makes money when people take them on trial anyway.

There is only so much they can fit in to a programme but they spoke to a lot of people and gathered a lot of evidence before this went anywhere near the production stage.

 

[ester]

flyingfeet I thought the same, they never tried to return a horse as unsuitable, or as a failed vetting so didn't really test the reports of issues there.

I am also not sure what the situation is legally if a dealer sells a horse that has problems that the dealer is not aware of- ie is that still not fit for purpose/misdescribed even if no intent on the dealers side.

 

[Janeuk1]

flyingfeet I thought the same, they never tried to return a horse as unsuitable, or as a failed vetting so didn't really test the reports of issues there.

I am also not sure what the situation is legally if a dealer sells a horse that has problems that the dealer is not aware of- ie is that still not fit for purpose/misdescribed even if no intent on the dealers side.

They had other evidence regarding the return of horses. It wasnt just hear say.

Legally, a dealer cannot deny responsibility "because they didnt know" its no different than buying a car from a dealer and the engine packing in a week later under the sale of goods act. This is why many dealers try to sell horses by pretending they are private sellers - then it is a case of buyer beware.

 

[Polos Mum]

JaneUK1 - sorry you had such a tough time, hopefully others will be able to learn from your experience and not hand over any cash until they have fully tried the horse, in all relevant situations and had it vetted as getting a refund may not be as simple as a dealer suggests.

I've bought 2 from different dealers, both of those I had on 2 weeks trial at my livery yard before any cash changed hands - it was more than 10 years ago now so maybe less common in todays climate of buying.

 

[ester]

I am aware of that but they did not really present that side of it in the programme.

 

[Aarrghimpossiblepony]

Didn't see the program but am I right in understanding that this dealer was trading under the name
"Kelly's Cobs"?
And people went within a hundred miles of him?

Sometimes it pays to be a snob.

 

[criso]

The vetting redwings did with scoping and xrays would have been in excess of £600 which is just not going to fly on a horse valued around £1,500

I would in some circumstances consider a vetting even if the horse was free. It might save heartache down the line and expense of paying more in vets bills because I am then emotionally attached.

I know of friends who when selling horses have had conditions show up at vetting that they didn't know about and they were not being dishonest when selling.

Even a 2 stage vetting or a quick look at the teeth will show up the difference between a 2 year old and a 4 year old or a 16 year old and a 25 year old.

I would have been curious to see what would have been the reaction of the dealer if they had suggested a vetting, would the horses suddenly have not been available maybe due it an unexpected injury

Ultimately as I said before, the programme let the novice buyers down by not mentioning anywhere what buyers could do to protect themselves.

 

[Emma_H]

Looks like their website has been taken down

 

[AmyMay]

Looks like their website has been taken down

FB still up though.

https://www.facebook.com/KellysCobs

 

[gnubee]

I missed the beginning, but I actually thought that the dealer came accross much better than watchdog in the bit I saw. In trying to make a dramatic program, they failed both to set out the real problem and provide constructive consumer advice. IMHO if you buy without a vetting you do so at your own risk.
Was the horse lame enough that it should have been obvious to the dealer whilst he was there? Possibly. Had it existed, should that degree of lameness have been picked up by the vetting which the buyer was entitled to perform and any responsible buyer would have done? Certainly. There is at least one person on here who says they did perform appropriate checks and try to return the horse within the period, which would have made a much more appropriate story about giving a responsible consumer the protection to which they should be entitled.

As a horse person I went away frustrated that the issues being addressed seemed to be things that (for the most part) ought to have been identified by responsible buyers seeking appropriately experienced advice and having vettings.
It scares me to think that non-horsey people went away thinking that you should be able to buy a 4 year old horse for your novice child for £1000 (or really any price) and expect it to be 100% suitable, and that if the horse has something wrong with it medically you shouldn't need to have it vetted becaus the seller should tell you.

Yes, the horse should theoretically have been 4 yo and suitable for a novice if that was how he was advertised, but I don't know any experienced horse person who would suggest that such a horse could ever really exist without close knowledge of both the child and the pony in question. It doesn't even require massive outlay on instructors; come on H&H and say "I want to buy a cheap 4yo which the dealer says is 100% safe for my novice child" and the free advice you need will be provided consistently and vociferously.

How difficult would it have been for them to use 30 seconds screen time to say:
- dont buy a horse unless you know what you are doing, what you need, and how you will care for it
- take an experienced person who knows your ability along for a second opinion
- paying out for a vetting upfront can save a lot in vets fees and emotional trauma down the line even for a horse that costs less than the vetting
- a young horse, even if well behaved on the day, will nearly always be ruined by a novice rider or handler
- try out the horse in a variety of situations and if you feel this is not possible, or are uncomfortable or pressured by the seller, just walk away.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

To be fair, Watchdog is not an equestrain programme, if people use a general consumer programme as a source of information for horse buying, I despair.

I'd vote for making everyone pass a compulsory course before buying and be licensed. Might save the horse welfare charities a fortune and better informed buyers would clip the wings of dodgy dealers.

 

[digitalangel]

must also say i was frustrated with Watchdog. This piece could have been so much better.

 

[hnmisty]

Watchdog isn't an equestrian programme though, I think it also shows that other dealers who offer "refund" periods may also not hand your money back very quickly. Why do a refund period? Why not do a trial period?

Website still comes up in google but won't open. And no one has deleted the angry comments on their FB page...

I loved Samson, and I'm hoping that the BBC/Watchdog are paying for those two to be kept in retirement at Redwings. Loppy was adorable

At the end of the day though, what it really shows is that you should have a vetting done before you take the horse off the yard, even if you are actually getting a trial period.

(And surely the vet's job is to work out WHY the horse is lame...it's the owner/carer's job to spot the lameness!)

 

[whisp&willow]

I just watched it on iplayer... bit wishy washy if you ask me!

The woman who bought the 2 1/2 yr old (sold as a 4 yo) She was looking to buy a horse for children to ride... why on earth would you buy a 4 yr old for that purpose? In the footage, he seemed like a nice quiet pony... but a cheeky one who has learned that if you lie down your rider gets off. Also not sure why they are still riding it now they know it's age?!

Not supporting a dodgey dealer- but they are not solely responsible for the buying public.

I really wish people would vet before buying, and at the very least take their instructor or a very knowledgeable third party along with them to try and get an idea of what they are viewing.

As for Loppy- she seemed like a lovely horse, full of life, and nowhere near retirement! Yes she had a big blemish, but my horse has many of them which do not affect her soundness, and at 19 is certainly nowhere near retirement! Again, she was sold as being a different age... but then my sisters old pony was sold to us as a 16yr old, and turned out to be nearer 30... a genuine seller who was as shocked as we were (she acted like a 3 yo!). The pony was fit and well and worked daily until only a couple of years ago. She is now retired, and if I had a light competent rider she could still be happily hacked, although at a more gentle pace than she would like!

I thought the piece could have been better, and although I am sure that the dealer is no saint, I think we are all responsible for what we buy...

 

[Montyforever]

Whispandwillow - if you go back a few pages I've commented as I know the horse/owners well, he's now 3 but when sold to them was 2 1/2 he's only being very lightly ridden now.

 

[Janeuk1]

I find it really frustrating people thinking a vetting is the be all and end all. The sensory ligament injury that Monty had suffered is unlikely to have been picked up by 5 stage vetting as he wasnt lame and the damage is not visible from the outside. I found out about this injury by research - which I wouldnt have been able to do until I had bought him and had the passport with all the previous owners in it (and there was no guarantee they would have responded - although i was lucky they did). The first I would have known about it would have been if the ligament had gone again (which would have been likely if he was used as we wanted - for jumping).

I have 4 horses / ponies and only one was vetted. The vetted one was the only one that I had any medical problem with - which the vet passed even though it was present and visible at the time of vetting. The other three have been brilliant. (admittedly two were youngsters and so hadn't been subject to any kind of riding or strenuous activity)

Vettings only assess that horse for the couple of hours they are there - and its not the vets job to determine suitability of temperement or ability to the owner / rider.

Also, saying only experience horse people should buy / own horses is like saying only experienced parents can have a baby..... everybody has to start getting experience from the beginning. There is always something new to learn no matter how long you have been around horses as each one is different. (although I agree that a novice should be advised to by a horse that has its ground manners established, no vices and is well schooled)

I have made mistakes with horses in the past, but most experienced horse people I know have too and they have learned from them. Yes you will get people that have a problem that will just sell it on, but there are also people who have a problem and so learn ways to overcome those problems (through research, help of others, patience).

I would never critisise a novice who was willing to learn, rather that than an experienced horse person who was so confident they knew it all they were not open to change or better ways of doing things.

I agree that there are other things that could have made the programme better, rather than just concentrating on the health and description of the horses being sold - but I can only gather the programme was about naming and shaming a rogue trader rather than giving consumer advice about buying a horse. The BHS website is a pretty good start for that kind of information.

The biggest problem with buying and selling horses is dishonesty. I could never dream of not being 100% truthful about a pony I was selling, even if this meant I had to sell for less - its peoples lives at risk and if I lied and the pony was unsuitable, the pony would just go from pillar to post (One of my youngsters was 2 when I bought her and had 3 previous owners already - you couldnt get near her! shes amazing now though after just 8 months)

 

[Polos Mum]

I find it really frustrating people thinking a vetting is the be all and end all. The sensory ligament injury that Monty had suffered is unlikely to have been picked up by 5 stage vetting as he wasnt lame and the damage is not visible from the outside.

What would you have done if you'd have bought privately? If it was a couple of owners previously the person you bought from may have been unaware of the issue.

Agree a vetting and experienced helper doesn't always guarantee sucess - but nothing in life is guaranteed sadly.

 

[poiuytrewq]

Whispandwillow - if you go back a few pages I've commented as I know the horse/owners well, he's now 3 but when sold to them was 2 1/2 he's only being very lightly ridden now.

Sorry Montyforever This thread is too long and I cant find this particular bit! Did your fiends keep the horse then?
Would be lovely too hear they did and it worked out ok? He didn't look naughty in the video just a baby and id like too think his story at least had a good ending

 

[Montyforever]

Poiuytrewq - yep they still have him, he's only a baby and he's done a lot so it's understandable that he has issues bless him.
But the rolling/lying down when ridden isn't going away, he's learnt to use it as its an effective way of getting out of doing things and he's generally one to use his strength against you. (as I unfortunately found out )
I think with a lot of time/paitence he may get better but he's still spooky and unpredictable, and completely not as described by Kelly's cobs he's lucky to be with my friends, don't think many other people would have put up with what they have.

 

[Janeuk1]

What would you have done if you'd have bought privately? If it was a couple of owners previously the person you bought from may have been unaware of the issue.

Agree a vetting and experienced helper doesn't always guarantee sucess - but nothing in life is guaranteed sadly.

His last owner did know, admittedly she didnt tell the dealer - because he asked NOTHING about the horse (some might say it's not his fault, I would say thats irresponsible). He knocked £500 of a horse she was buying as part ex. She did however, include a letter with his passport with contact details and some information, but this was not with the passport when i recieved it.
The previous owner to that was quite annoyed about the situation as she told me he was sold on as a light hack.

I would probably not have travelled so far to a private seller to be honest. I did so, because I felt a (false) confidence with the two week trial agreement. Once i found there were problems I gave David Thomas the benefit of the doubt initially and I only went to trading standards when he held on to my money. (I was even ok with losing the admin fees because that was the risk I was prepared to take to have a genuine trial period to make sure the horses were what we were looking for - i didnt take them on being naive, I personall think a two week trial where you can go really test a horse is worth a little bit of money!)

I would be very interested to know if he reduced Monty's price accordingly once he was definitely aware of the injury and passed on the vet records i sent to him that detailed Monty's said injury and treatment received.

I admit it is a battle field out there and I did after that always take more than one experienced person with me to few the other horses (except the frightened pony.... I saw a photo of her and fell in love - I guess my impulse is my problem! I took her on with the expectation of having to work hard with her though, maybe thats the difference)

 

[AmyMay]

The previous owner to that was quite annoyed about the situation as she told me he was sold on as a light hack.

And therein lies the problem.

Dodgy dealers, and people unwilling to face up to their responsibilities.

 

[criso]

I find it really frustrating people thinking a vetting is the be all and end all.

There is no guarantee that a vetting will pick up everything but you can guarantee that you won't pick up underlying issues if you don't have a vetting.

Yes, with soft tissue injuries it is possible to rest a horse so it recovers up to a point but will relapse when it comes back into work. If you sell it at that point it time, it probably would pass a vetting. Seen it happen with private sellers and then the buyer has had it scanned and the old injury has shown up. In those cases, it is also more difficult to prove that the dealer/private seller knew as while at least the dealer has the responsibility to compensate the buyer they could have bought and sold in good faith.


But in most of the cases that they showed in the programme a vet would have picked up that

1 The 4 year old was nearer 2
2 The 12/16/unknown age grey mare was over 20. The horrendous scarring on her leg may not have been relevant but I would want a second opinion that no vital structures were involved before buying.
3 The coloured mare while it didn't say what was wrong, it sounded very severe and involved bones so may well have been picked up.

I would never critisise a novice who was willing to learn, rather that than an experienced horse person who was so confident they knew it all they were not open to change or better ways of doing things.

But one example of over confident for me would be a novice who thinks they don't need a second opinion from instructors/vets/more experienced friends when they go to buy a horse.

 

[*sprinkles*]

Just watched this on catch-up ..... Unbelievable that he has 20% of horses returned to him and offers refunds. Yeah he offers refunds, but that's a huge percentage to be returned and hardly a way to run a business! God what a shambles! However, I do think there's two sides to every story and the question is why were these horses not vetted before they left his yard?! Others have probably made this point (not read the whole thread) but at the end of the day the saying goes "buyer beware" .... Doesn't excuse his lying but buyers are setting themselves up for failure if they don't take precautions particularly when buying an older horse. Funny how this was never mentioned in the show ....

 

[MerrySherryRider]

I don't think anyone is saying only experienced people should buy horses otherwise no one would ever buy a first horse.
Best chance of success is to be informed, have a knowledgeable person to help and get a vetting done.
A vetting doesn't ensure a perfect horse, but at least you'll rule out a number of issues before you start, particularly if the buyer is inexperienced. I've known vets actually stop a vetting to advise the buyer that the horse, although healthy, is unsuitable. for the intended rider. ( And in one case, very probably saved the girl from breaking her neck.)

Buying a horse, no matter how many you've had, is always a gamble but ask a successful gambler their secret of success and they'll tell you its not just luck, its hard work.

 

[Janeuk1]

Just watched this on catch-up ..... Unbelievable that he has 20% of horses returned to him and offers refunds. Yeah he offers refunds, but that's a huge percentage to be returned and hardly a way to run a business! God what a shambles! However, I do think there's two sides to every story and the question is why were these horses not vetted before they left his yard?! Others have probably made this point (not read the whole thread) but at the end of the day the saying goes "buyer beware" .... Doesn't excuse his lying but buyers are setting themselves up for failure if they don't take precautions particularly when buying an older horse. Funny how this was never mentioned in the show ....

fortunately - it is only "buyer beware" in private sales. At least buying from a dealer (dodgy or not!) you are protected by consumer law. You expect a car to be as described, in a satisfactory condition on delivery and for it to remain so for a reasonable amount of time, if it is not - you are protected by the sales of goods act. This is exactly the same with a horse. Just because we become emotionally attached to them, does not change the law. Besides - dealers are supposed to be the experts and there are plenty of good honest dealers out there, who do find suitable horses for the buyer in question. This is an ideal way to buy in those instances as like I said, you have consumer protection.

 

[horsesatemymoney]

I imagine, even if he honoured his 14 day trial idea, he'd be pretty hard to deal with- seems like a forceful character with 'getting a sale' in the forfront of his mind.

I agree that WD didn't give him a chance to put the problem right, I guess they could have tried but then kept the horses, but if they'd have given them back they'd be called fit to burn for passing back a horse with a problem and potentially letting somebody else buy it: hence why they 'palmed it off' on redwings as somebody else said- what were they meant to do with them?

Pretty poor advice from WD though- really should advise vettings and taking an experienced friend. Can't help but wonder if their experienced friend chose the two dodgy looking ones to make good TV- doesn't excuse the fact that he was trying to sell them anyway though, and he's obviously got form.

 

[whisp&willow]

Whispandwillow - if you go back a few pages I've commented as I know the horse/owners well, he's now 3 but when sold to them was 2 1/2 he's only being very lightly ridden now.

Thanks MF- I hadn't read the whole thread- was on my lunch break and used most of it watching watchdog!

Rolling is an awful habit- and one which is very hard to break once learned! I used to ride a pony who tried to do this in the summer (sweaty) or when we were in the sea...! She never got a chance to get down and roll though, frantic pony club kicks saw to that!

I wish your friends well for the future with him, and hope that they can overcome his naughty tendencies!

Picking up on a few recent replies:

* no, a vetting (even a 5 stage one) can not ensure a safe and sound purchase, but it will uncover some issues, and should generally be carried out.

* It is not the case that inexperienced owners/novice riders should not be able to go out and buy a horse. BUT it is important that they have the support and advice of more experienced people one of whom should not be the vendor! likening the first time buyer of a horse to a first time parent is a bit much, and besides which, first time parents are not expected to go through the process without help, support and advice from professionals and friends with experience!

ets: even experienced horse owners should (and many do!) bring another set of experienced eyes along with them when viewing a potential purchase... it's so easy to get swept away and miss glaring or niggling negatives in a horse.

 

[Hippona]

I know the vetting would have shown up his age, which we are all more than aware of.

The point of the program was that the horses are not being sold as described. He was described as being 4, 100% safe to ride, drive and handle. He is none of that (opposite infact!) and if a novice had taken him on there could have been a serious accident.

No offense intended.....but no 4 year old is 100% safe to ride, drive and handle.

In fact I'd go so far as to say NO horse is 100% anything all the time....