Watchdog!

[JandP]

Of course there are dealers who sell schoolmasters. Schoolmasters do change hands from time to time, and they aren't always sold privately.

I can't think why anyone would send a loved and treasured member of the family to a dealer given the choice (I appreciate some circumstances may arise where it is unavoidable - death or bankruptcy!), why would you do that??

 

[Camel]

I stated earlier that I didn't think you were given a 'fair trial' as such, you weren't allowed to defend yourself and that irritating smug feck of a reporter (High five Cattysmiths OH! ) just made a joke of the whole programme!

You could be the absolute dealer from hell (I remember Misterton Carr and Horse Imports ) but came across better than everyone else featured in the programme IMO - so Watchdog shot themselves in the foot!

Now can I have a free (sound and under 20 ) Ardennes for being so nice please thankyou !!

xx

 

[ladyt25]

Kellyscobs, I applaud you for posting as opposed to shirking it off and hiding away. I don't agree with your practices as you evidently have a history of poor dealings both with horses and dogs seemingly!

However, I think Watchdog did a poor job at 'exposing' you as a dodgy dealer. Firstly, with Loppy, sure, that horse was blatantly 'aged'. However, I do not have a lot of trust in vets ageing a horse by it's teeth and I am not convinced that horse was 25. She seemed a perfectly nice animal and therefore their 'proof' in that instance was weak.

As for Genie, again they failed there to show any real 'dodgy deal' had occurred. In my opinion they should have blood tested that horse as soon as they removed it from your yard so that they could tell whether you had purposefully hidden the lameness issue. As it was they didn't do that and in fact all we saw was a sound horse being trotted up and ridden and then an endclip of a vet saying it was lame and had "broken bones" in it's leg (no actual explanation to what though - one can only assume he meant a crumbling of a joint?).

They also did not test you on whether you were true to your word re the trial and return. I think that would have been a crucial part of them 'exposing' you.

In addition they should have stated that 'novice' people buying horses should alway take an experienced person with them to advise.

As for the lady who bought the 4 yo that turned out to be younger, I know the friend of hers is on here but she should never had bought a 4 yo for a child/novice anyway whether you said it was 'bombproof' or not. They clearly were not experienced enough to buy horses and should have had an experienced person with them.Plus, if what you say is true about offering to take the horse back then i am astounded they didn't do this and instead chose to keep it. I am also shocked they are still trying to back it when really it should be turned away, given some time to mature, taught some manners on the ground and then restarted.

I do think if you intend on continuing in this business you need to consider what you are selling to who. You came across as not knowing much at all about the horses - fine, it's a business there's not reason you should as I am sure you see a load of horses. However, your staff must know a bit more as they deal with them daily so they should be able to judge capabilities of the purchaser with regards to the horses you are selling.

I don't think it's your responsibility to have your horses vetted. That in my mind is what any prospective purchaser should do, especially when buying from a dealer where the history of the horse is largely unknown. Sorry, but in my mind no matter how much we've changed inot a litigious society, the old adage of "buyer beware" still applies wherever you buy a horse from!

 

[minesadouble]

Well said Lady T! Hardly ever log in here nowadays but I have been prompted to by this thread.

I too applaud the dealer in question for coming on here and offering his version of events. The Watchdog programme proved nothing in my opinion.

Caveat Emptor is still my watchword when buying horses. I have bought many over the years, including three bought unseen. I very much feel the onus is on the buyer to ensure the horse is suitable and sound to do the job they want, not the seller. The problem is there are too many inexperienced people buying who would be far better off getting a few more years experience under their belts before even contemplating horse ownership.

A perfect example is my eldest daughter's old 13.2 who was just the perfect pony. She won everything from showing, WHP, Showjumping and XC on him and he was the perfect hunter to boot. He took her from being a reasonable, if a little nervous jockey to being a confident and accomplished rider and she owes everything to him. When he was outgrown we couldn't bear to part with him so we loaned him, staying on our yard, to a younger girl who was a nice rider, though not hugely experienced and lacked a little confidence in her abilities. Our 'super schoolmaster' was an absolute little twot with her!! I couldn't believe he was the same pony! He just took the mickey out of her to the extreme. If I had sold him to this family I'm sure they would have thought we had spun them a total yarn. In my experience a lot of horses with 'behavioural issues' in fact have an owner who is incapable of dealing with them.

As far as soundness and ageing horses goes (and I agree that putting a specific age on an older horse is a VERY inexact science!) that is what a vetting is for - even a 2 stage if the price doesn't warrant a 5 stage.

If a person is not experienced enough to spot potential issues in a prospective purchase then they should take someone experienced enough to so to view the horse and have a vetting.

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this particular dealer handled the Watchdog situation really well, better than I would have done, and I thought he came across as quite a reasonable person. I have no knowledge of 'Kelly's Cobs' prior to this and if they were in my area (they are not btw) and had a horse I liked the look of 'Watchdog' would certainly not have put me off buying from them!

 

[KellysCobs]

Hi Ladyt25 read your long post fully and will respond at length in the morning but just wanted to make one small point initially they did blood test both horses within 48 hours of leaving us and of course both proved negative of any chemical used for adjusting the soundness of a horse. Loppy passed a full vetting at whatever age she is how many aged horses do that? if honest i thought she looked fantastic in there clips if we now deal briefly with queenie i am glad you noted she looked sound when trotted up and thats exactly how she appeared to us the lameness was only discovered after flexion tests were carried out and xrays were taken, we've never been shown any xrays so cant comment on the exact injury or alleged injury so we can now assume both horses were sold without any form of drugging. Can i just ask for your comments on this question if the injury to queenie is so bad that she requires very strong medication daily only to be destroyed in 2 years as stated by watchdog what point does that serve? watchdog are yet to establish any factual evidence ie vets report, xrays what so ever despite our request they are also refusing to return the horses so we can refund and also so we can investigate further it is my opinion the age issue with Loppy was a secondary issue and that they originally purchased her because she had one thick leg this later proved to be old scar tissue that the vet himself admitted did not affect her in any way which left them with very little to argue. They had already committed to making the program and as we had proved we had refunded we had refunded Jane Arkell in full it left them very little to go on. I am not going to labour the point as to whether queenie was lame or not but feel very strongly that had they followed the terms under which they purchased the horse they would have received a refund this i feel would have a much more interesting story had it been put to the test which it wasn't. Regards

 

[Tinypony]

I can't think why anyone would send a loved and treasured member of the family to a dealer given the choice (I appreciate some circumstances may arise where it is unavoidable - death or bankruptcy!), why would you do that??

Well, you've just suggested two reasons yourself.

The fact is that just because it's a schoolmaster that doesn't mean it is a loved and treasured member of a family. Some people are quite happy to pass a schoolmaster horse on through a dealer, simply because they or maybe their child want to move on to something more challenging. Your post also implies that it would be a bad thing for a horse to go to a dealer to be sold, whereas of course there are reputable dealers out there who do a good job. They have the experience, advertising and facilities that the owner may not have and if it's a sad sell, it is one way the owner can make things a bit easier for themselves.

 

[ladyt25]

Hi Ladyt25 read your long post fully and will respond at length in the morning but just wanted to make one small point initially they did blood test both horses within 48 hours of leaving us and of course both proved negative of any chemical used for adjusting the soundness of a horse. Loppy passed a full vetting at whatever age she is how many aged horses do that? if honest i thought she looked fantastic in there clips if we now deal briefly with queenie i am glad you noted she looked sound when trotted up and thats exactly how she appeared to us the lameness was only discovered after flexion tests were carried out and xrays were taken, we've never been shown any xrays so cant comment on the exact injury or alleged injury so we can now assume both horses were sold without any form of drugging. Can i just ask for your comments on this question if the injury to queenie is so bad that she requires very strong medication daily only to be destroyed in 2 years as stated by watchdog what point does that serve? watchdog are yet to establish any factual evidence ie vets report, xrays what so ever despite our request they are also refusing to return the horses so we can refund and also so we can investigate further it is my opinion the age issue with Loppy was a secondary issue and that they originally purchased her because she had one thick leg this later proved to be old scar tissue that the vet himself admitted did not affect her in any way which left them with very little to argue. They had already committed to making the program and as we had proved we had refunded we had refunded Jane Arkell in full it left them very little to go on. I am not going to labour the point as to whether queenie was lame or not but feel very strongly that had they followed the terms under which they purchased the horse they would have received a refund this i feel would have a much more interesting story had it been put to the test which it wasn't. Regards

Yes, sorry it was long (you don't realise when you're typing!) I talk a lot so write a lot!

As for the 'broken bones' issue. I really wish they had explained that fully although I appreciate they air to a non-horsey public but it would have at least been useful to have seen the horse trotted up lame as they had stated. I think the vet's description was misleading. I can only assume they meant she had a degenerative, crumbling condition of the hock possibly as otherwise broken bones can be fixed and if, as you say they did blood test the horse and found nothing untoward, I would have expected a much lamer animal to be presented.

In answer to your question though no, if that horse was in as much pain as they described then I wouldn't treat it woth expensive meds with the knowledge it would have to be PTS within 2 years. That is draining money off the charity and is no help to the horse. It would have been better to have the horse PTS immediately if it was so bad.

 

[Well I Never]

@monty forever-i feel your friend who owns the horse should be discussing things on here if she wishes. Not by some third party.

 

[co-jack]

hi,
I bought a horse from kellys cobs, a little fat horse, but a beautiful horse, can you involve me in the link please xxx fat horse ;-) x

 

[AmyMay]

I guess now kellyscobs that you'll be persuing the BBC for damages. Letbus know how you get on.

 

[platypus]

Sorry i may have missed something here, but to feature on the programme in the first place somebody must have given them a 'tip off', reported you or whatever for the bbc to go ahead. Its very well you saying these were one off cases and that obviously there are reasons why horses weren't vetted, aged wrongly etc and your probably not the worst dealer out there by far but things do need to be changed and done correctly.

 

[KellysCobs]

hi,
I bought a horse from kellys cobs, a little fat horse, but a beautiful horse, can you involve me in the link please xxx fat horse ;-) x

Hi which horse is this and thanks for your comments, Im glad you posted that on here and not Facebook, there you would have been slated with death threats for having a fat horse and on another page you would be hung for having a too skinny one. Sorry being flippant. xx

 

[KellysCobs]

I guess now kellyscobs that you'll be persuing the BBC for damages. Letbus know how you get on.

Well this is a good point and if the forum has no objections I will post all correspondence I have had with the BBC and Watchdog on here and there replies. I'm sure they will object for me posting there replies without permission, but then again they never asked me for my permission to film me. Oh and I too was disgusted at my belly and can assure you I am on a diet.

Regards

David

 

[KellysCobs]

Sorry i may have missed something here, but to feature on the programme in the first place somebody must have given them a 'tip off', reported you or whatever for the bbc to go ahead. Its very well you saying these were one off cases and that obviously there are reasons why horses weren't vetted, aged wrongly etc and your probably not the worst dealer out there by far but things do need to be changed and done correctly.

In answer, the original complaint was made by Jane Arkle who purchased two horses from us, she came and tried both at length at our premises and found both suitable, she then agreed to buy both horses at £4000. We transported both to London area for £200 which was less than cost. Jane then changed her mind and returned both horses at her expense and we refunded her the full £4000, not as Watchdog stated £3500. I believe Ms Arkle was of the opinion we should have refunded all her out of pocket expenses despite the fact the horses were not at fault.

Regards

David

 

[Parachute]

Kelly'sCobs - I really admire you for coming on here and somewhat defending yourself. I feel some people can be too judgemental but having seen what Watchdog showed everybody, your business didn't look too great. Obviously people make mistakes and let's just hope these were genuine mistakes and not just made up so you could sell the horses. Every story has 2 sides, so I am open to reading this debate and not judging - although I feel you may get slated for a while.
I don't remember seeing Watchdog complain to you or ask for a refund so I can't comment on that side of things, can anybody remember if they did or not? (memory of a goldfish)

Kelly'sCobs - Perhaps you can work through this problem and just try to be more correct in future, like I said everyone makes mistakes and I just hope this is the last one like this. For the safety of the horses and potential owners.

Sorry if I seem rude, not intentional.

*Prepares to be shot down, puts bulletproof hat on*

 

[foxy1]

Well said Lady T! Hardly ever log in here nowadays but I have been prompted to by this thread.

I too applaud the dealer in question for coming on here and offering his version of events. The Watchdog programme proved nothing in my opinion.

Caveat Emptor is still my watchword when buying horses. I have bought many over the years, including three bought unseen. I very much feel the onus is on the buyer to ensure the horse is suitable and sound to do the job they want, not the seller. The problem is there are too many inexperienced people buying who would be far better off getting a few more years experience under their belts before even contemplating horse ownership.

A perfect example is my eldest daughter's old 13.2 who was just the perfect pony. She won everything from showing, WHP, Showjumping and XC on him and he was the perfect hunter to boot. He took her from being a reasonable, if a little nervous jockey to being a confident and accomplished rider and she owes everything to him. When he was outgrown we couldn't bear to part with him so we loaned him, staying on our yard, to a younger girl who was a nice rider, though not hugely experienced and lacked a little confidence in her abilities. Our 'super schoolmaster' was an absolute little twot with her!! I couldn't believe he was the same pony! He just took the mickey out of her to the extreme. If I had sold him to this family I'm sure they would have thought we had spun them a total yarn. In my experience a lot of horses with 'behavioural issues' in fact have an owner who is incapable of dealing with them.

As far as soundness and ageing horses goes (and I agree that putting a specific age on an older horse is a VERY inexact science!) that is what a vetting is for - even a 2 stage if the price doesn't warrant a 5 stage.

If a person is not experienced enough to spot potential issues in a prospective purchase then they should take someone experienced enough to so to view the horse and have a vetting.

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this particular dealer handled the Watchdog situation really well, better than I would have done, and I thought he came across as quite a reasonable person. I have no knowledge of 'Kelly's Cobs' prior to this and if they were in my area (they are not btw) and had a horse I liked the look of 'Watchdog' would certainly not have put me off buying from them!

Great post, and I've not been put off buying from them either.

 

[KellysCobs]

Kelly'sCobs - I really admire you for coming on here and somewhat defending yourself. I feel some people can be too judgemental but having seen what Watchdog showed everybody, your business didn't look too great. Obviously people make mistakes and let's just hope these were genuine mistakes and not just made up so you could sell the horses. Every story has 2 sides, so I am open to reading this debate and not judging - although I feel you may get slated for a while.
I don't remember seeing Watchdog complain to you or ask for a refund so I can't comment on that side of things, can anybody remember if they did or not? (memory of a goldfish)

Kelly'sCobs - Perhaps you can work through this problem and just try to be more correct in future, like I said everyone makes mistakes and I just hope this is the last one like this. For the safety of the horses and potential owners.

Sorry if I seem rude, not intentional.

*Prepares to be shot down, puts bulletproof hat on*

Thank you for your comments and take on board your comments and feel you've been very fair. I also agree we as a company must carry on trading and will learn from this. One thing as I believe Ive said earlier is that we are looking into having all our horses pre-vetted so hopefully this will cut down on any future problems.

Kind Regards

David

 

[KellysCobs]

Great post, and I've not been put off buying from them either.

Thank you for that and your welcome anytime. xx

 

[KellysCobs]

This is a copy of the email we sent to Jane Arkell.

Dear J Arkell
This is David from KellysCobs, as your probably aware we have been contacted by the BBC regarding two horses you purchased from us called Ed and Monty which were later returned to us. They claim we dragged our feet in refunding you and then made a deduction of £500, they did not state why we made this deduction. Our records show we did in fact refund you in full for
the cost of the horses and any deduction if made was to cover transport costs incurred. We do have records showing refunds being paid into your HSBC bank account. I am writing to ask your memory of the refunds and dates.

I would appreciate if you could answer the follow questions.

1) Were you refunded in full.

[Arkell, Jane (STDL) (ext)] No.

2) If not and deductions were made what was the reason for these deductions.

[Arkell, Jane
(STDL) (ext)] I Paid £100 for delivery. Then you deducted £100 for Ed and £100 for Monty. It cost me
£180 for transport to have them returned. For information purposes, I'd also paid for wormers, stabling etc for
the horses and as a result I was over £500 out of pocket for horses that were, in my view, miss-sold.

 

[KellysCobs]

If I could ask the forum for there opinion. The first photo was taken off the Watchdog program and is a photo taken of teeth. The second one is a teeth chart. Yes Im biased but in my opinion Loppy looks far closer to 15 than the 20 year old diagram. Better still if there are or vets or dentists I would invite there opinion also. Please no suggestion of us doctoring the photos as there on the watchdog program for all to check.

Loppy

Age Chart

 

[Cuffey]

The picture shows the Galvaynes groove only in the bottom half of the tooth, ie disappeared from the top half--so I agree with the 25years

This represents my understanding of Galvaynes Groove

''The Galvayne's Groove - The Basics

As we said above, the Galvayne's groove is a dark or brownish groove in a horse's upper corner incisor teeth. If present, it should be present on each side of a horse's mouth.

In general, the Galvayne's groove:

First appears at the gum line in horses about 10 years of age. Each year, the groove will extend a little farther down the tooth.
It is expected to be about halfway down the tooth at 15 years of age, and all the way down (visible from top to bottom) at 20 years of age.
After 20 years of age, the Galvayne's groove begins to disappear from the tooth, starting at the top. By approximately 25 years of age the Galvayne's groove will be gone from the top half of the tooth, but still visible on the bottom half.
By the time a horse is 30, it is expected to be gone completely.''

 

[FabioandFreddy]

Whilst i thought the programme was poorly done, a 20% return rate of horses sold is very high. And only one loser - the buyer. Kelly's Cobs keep a percentage as an admin fee then re-sell the horse for the same price to another buyer! I certainly wouldn't buy from anywhere that 1 in 5 were returned.

 

[Parachute]

Thank you for your comments and take on board your comments and feel you've been very fair. I also agree we as a company must carry on trading and will learn from this. One thing as I believe Ive said earlier is that we are looking into having all our horses pre-vetted so hopefully this will cut down on any future problems.

Kind Regards

David

Well, I think that decision will benefit your business greatly. It'll take a while but i'm sure if you focus on the positives and do all the pre-vetting on each horse you may get a good reputation one day.

 

[KellysCobs]

Whilst i thought the programme was poorly done, a 20% return rate of horses sold is very high. And only one loser - the buyer. Kelly's Cobs keep a percentage as an admin fee then re-sell the horse for the same price to another buyer! I certainly wouldn't buy from anywhere that 1 in 5 were returned.

We do not keep a percentage, if the horse is returned within the 14-days for genuine reasons, ie vet fail, different from described we refund in full. If this is not the case could you kindly offer a factual case.

Regards

David

 

[KellysCobs]

Whilst i thought the programme was poorly done, a 20% return rate of horses sold is very high. And only one loser - the buyer. Kelly's Cobs keep a percentage as an admin fee then re-sell the horse for the same price to another buyer! I certainly wouldn't buy from anywhere that 1 in 5 were returned.

The national average of all horses vetted that fail is above 30%. Please establish this for yourself or ask your vet. We estimate 20% in our case so we in-line with the national average certainly no worse.

Regards

David

 

[wildwest]

i agree with age line clearly at bottom hence 20 plus .
i do not agree with watchdog program v poorly done

 

[KellysCobs]

The picture shows the Galvaynes groove only in the bottom half of the tooth, ie disappeared from the top half--so I agree with the 25years

This represents my understanding of Galvaynes Groove

''The Galvayne's Groove - The Basics

As we said above, the Galvayne's groove is a dark or brownish groove in a horse's upper corner incisor teeth. If present, it should be present on each side of a horse's mouth.

In general, the Galvayne's groove:

First appears at the gum line in horses about 10 years of age. Each year, the groove will extend a little farther down the tooth.
It is expected to be about halfway down the tooth at 15 years of age, and all the way down (visible from top to bottom) at 20 years of age.
After 20 years of age, the Galvayne's groove begins to disappear from the tooth, starting at the top. By approximately 25 years of age the Galvayne's groove will be gone from the top half of the tooth, but still visible on the bottom half.
By the time a horse is 30, it is expected to be gone completely.''

Good point and will welcome your input. Regards

 

[noodle_]

i havent viewed the programme


is there a link to catch up to see it?????




have to say - i think its very wise of said dealer to come and give facts and not slam an argument down like some would!! so good for you

 

[ladyt25]

You'd have to look at a galvayne's groove along with the angle of the teeth though which can't be seen in those charts and also by looking at the spots and stripes on the teeth themselves - the bottom teeth. You can't go off a galvayne's groove alone. My pony didn't/doesn't have one and never has. He also had a 7 year hook on his teeth well in to his teens. It is not an exact science at all.

 

[noodle_]

found it! am watching now