Why do people caution against using sellers own vet?

[Ample Prosecco]

Ok so I understand the risk of dodgy dealers and shady vets, but while there are no shortage of the former, I doubt very much there are too many of the latter. Besides, that advice is given for private sales too where the idea that a vet would compromise his ethical standards and put his job at risk seems unlikely. Not to mention the unlikelihood of a private seller having the ability to plot a scheme with a friendly vet- even if the vets and sellers are both out there willing to be dodgy, how would they find each other?

Dolly’s buyers asked to use my own vet. They rang me and said was I sure because they were then duty bound to release her entire history. 3 years worth of it. Even the investigations that found nothing ( eg when we pulled bloods the first time she went flat at coat change time). Find by me- I had nothing to hide. But some sellers do! So surely it’s much safer for a buyer to do that?

Dolly’s new owners have the peace of mind not just of a 5 stage but full disclosure of absolutely everything.

Given the fact that Amber and Lottie both came to me with zero history, I’d really appreciate knowing a bit more.

Unnecessary exclusions are an issue if you insure but that’s the only realistic disadvantage I can think of. And as I don’t insure that doesn’t affect me.

So why would you use/avoid a private seller’s own vet?

 

[Lyle]

I agree! I have often wondered about this, I've mused that maybe it was a piece of advice from yester-year that got handed down from experienced owners to first time horse buyers- 'Make sure you don't use their vet!'. It's then floated around and around and become cemented as a sound piece of advice. I have no doubt that there has definitely had validity in the past, but in recent years I've really thought that there is no way a vet would compromise their job and future employment over a vetting... I think too, the fact that pre purchase exams really only cover the soundness of the horse on the day covers the vet.
I'd love to be able to present horses for sale with a current vet inspection having been done prior. I know it wouldn't stop people wanting their own and using a vet that they trust, but it could easily save some time and make everyone a little less nervous!

 

[Lois Lame]

It sounds like maybe it would be a good idea to use the seller's vet if the seller agrees. The main thing I think is to make sure that the would be buyer doesn't fall for something the seller says, such as, the horse was vetted last week and was fine.

 

[MuffettMischief]

It does make me chuckle a bit when I see the (often very forceful!) ‘don’t use their vet’ advice. Now don’t get me wrong, there have been instances of dodgy vets and back handers but do we really think that every vet is like that? That they would risk 7/8 years education/training, many thousands of pounds worth of debt and an entire career over a vetting…
It also means that they have to declare if they’ve seen the horse for anything that could potentially make them not suitable for your intended use. I don’t think they have to physically hand over the entire history unless you ask for it and it has to be agreed with client but I might be wrong!

 

[Mule]

I know of 2 vets who did this. One was eventually struck off for something else. The other was in relation to passing a navicular horse. There was no definitive proof of it but the new owner's vet said it was sufficiently advanced that it should have been detected on vetting

 

[NightStock]

I used the sellers vet (I knew the seller) and the vet said she didn't always like doing this in case she upset the seller/client, if the sale fell through due to vetting!

 

[Ample Prosecco]

Yes my vet says they preferred not as it created a conflict of interest. But would if seller agreed - knowing that for the purposes of the vetting the buyer was now the client. As a buyer I think that is a pretty good situation. I’m never buying again but if I did I’d do that. And if seller said no then that’s a bit of a red flag too.

 

[Red-1]

I have done in the past, but the downside is the looking at vets records, as this than makes it more likely to get an insurance exclusion. For example, the horse may present as faultless on the day, but if the records say it had colic once, 5 years ago, then colic is likely to be excluded when you insure.

If I like it enough to buy it, I generally just have a 5 stage vetting done, then insure. I have not found trawling through the records to be helpful.

 

[Flicker]

Where we live there is only one equine practice locally so buyers and sellers have to use the same vet. They try to get a vet who isn’t that familiar with the horse to do the vetting but it doesn’t always work out that way. Our vets are very good… BUT we also have a lot of very wealthy people in the area who have a number of competition horses and are obviously important clients. I have heard anecdotally that these clients get a different level of service, shall we say, that extends to a ‘I’m sure that slight odd step is nothing to worry about’ when their horses for sale get vetted. I have heard a few horror stories where horses who passed vettings subsequently go on to be diagnosed with issues that would reasonably be expected to have existed prior to the vetting and therefore should have manifested. So far, touch wood, I’ve been ok with the practice and they’ve been very good (and ’failed’ two horses from one of the yards I mentioned that I was interested in buying).

 

[nutjob]

I used the sellers vet recently for an unbroken 2.5 yo. It was a well respected practice and they told me they had to disclose everything. The horse hadn't been for sale anyway and I had contacted the breeder as I already bought a horse off her previously. I was happy with this. I doubt they would throw away their reputation for a one off vetting with a small breeder.

I have previously tried to use the sellers vet and had the vet decline. A different vet found the horse was lame, the sellers were aware of it as was their vet who clearly didn't want to get involved! It was a private sale, so I would consider it more of a problem if the vets for a private seller declined.

If it was from a dealer I wouldn't use their recommended vet as the history of the horse will not be with them anyway. I'd start running if the dealer said they wouldn't allow other vets at the yard or the vet practice said they didn't go there!

 

[Bernster]

Interesting point about the seller’s vet declining, that would be a big red flag but quite a useful one! I’ve always thought it was due to a conflict of interest with the potential for their vet to favour the seller, but you’re right that most prof vets should be able to navigate that. The disclosure of info I kind of felt was a good thing, to know the history, but ofc it does leave an issue with insurance exclusions.

Ive always used an independent vet before but for Bertie there weren’t any in the area. The sellers vet had only seen him for jabs so no history to disclose. She did a very thorough vetting. I took the fact that the sellers were happy for the same vet to be used as a good thing, seemed to indicate they had nothing to hide, although this vet hadn’t seen him much at all and their established vet had retired his practice, so that could have been a bit dodgy I suppose!

I wouldn’t use a dealers vet as that does seem to have a higher risk factor I’d say. I’ve been to dealers who have refused to use certain vets practices which is another red flag for me.

 

[ycbm]

Now don’t get me wrong, there have been instances of dodgy vets and back handers but do we really think that every vet is like that?

Can you please tell me how I can distinguish the one that is from the ones that aren't?

There has been at least 1 prosecution. It is sound advice unless you know the seller and the vet very well. The vet record can be released without using the seller's vet.
.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

I have previously tried to use the sellers vet and had the vet decline. A different vet found the horse was lame, the sellers were aware of it as was their vet who clearly didn't want to get involved! It was a private sale, so I would consider it more of a problem if the vets for a private seller declined.

Yes exactly that. A seller who has decided to offload a not-quite-right horse would not want their own vet involved in the sale. I know plenty of people who get ther horses sound enough to sell. With varying levels of disclosure once they could pass a vetting.

 

[Sossigpoker]

If a vet does a lot of vettings for a dealer , say, even if they're not dodgy, it's not in the vet's best interest, financially speaking , to be too critical. Sadly this happened to me. I have such excellent vets here that for following purchases I've paid them extra to come a bit further to look at prospective horses.

 

[Rowreach]

I would use my own vet, whether or not he’s the seller’s vet, for a reasonably local horse, or a vet that he recommended for one further away. I trust him and I trust his recommendations.

I’ve seen far too many instances where seller’s vets vet the horse “on the day” and don’t disclose any history at all.

 

[Equi]

For me I wanted my vet because I knew him (far too well unfortunately) so he knew what I was looking for and what my anxieties would be with a new horse, so he was able to reassure me. My seller was more than happy for me to use their vet and get a full history if I’d wanted, they were a very genuine seller.

 

[Lady Jane]

I would prefer to use my own vet. My vet's advice was if the horse you are buying has been with the seller for some time, its a good idea to use their vet as they have to disclose. If you are buying from someone who has a fast turnover of horses then probably not but it shouldn't matter. I would make sure the practice had a decent equine facility ie didn't just do a few horses on the side as you do need an experienced equine vet for a vetting

 

[Leam_Carrie]

My vets was the same as the sellers vet. I think they checked the seller was happy for them to do it before agreeing. They then have access to all history.
I guess there is an advantage of buying from a private seller, but not a dealer as they are unlikely to have had the horse long, so limited extra vet history.

 

[splashgirl45]

some vets are more picky with vettings and some a bit casual so it could be an advantage to the seller for the buyer to use the less picky one. in my area i know which vet i would choose and if i was buying in an area she wouldnt travel to i would ask for a recommendation

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

I am old school, have never used seller's vet and never would. If near enough I have always used my own vet or I ask him to use his contacts to suggest a couple of vets in seller's area.

 

[Rowreach]

I am old school, have never used seller's vet and never would. If near enough I have always used my own vet or I ask him to use his contacts to suggest a couple of vets in seller's area.

I expect you and I have seen what can happen

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

I expect you and I have seen what can happen

Absolutely and unfortunately this forum alone has had many threads to suggest that we do well to stick to what has always worked best for us.

 

[Noble]

This has always confused me, for a private sale anyway, I can understand where a dealer is involved you would want someone independent. I wouldn't use their vet on purpose but it wouldn't put me off if they were the best in the area. My latest horse was vetted by my vet which happened to also be the sellers but only for more involved stuff, she used a more local vet to her for vaccinations etc, he declared this as soon as he arrived and said although he had worked for seller on that day he was employed by me and was working on my behalf not the sellers. He was also able to tell me he had never met this horse before which was very useful (a just backed 4 year old she had had for 2 years) he was also able to give me his opinion on the sellers reliability and honesty 99% as he could never commit to 100% which was helpful when parting with my hard earned cash. The horse is perfect and I am still in touch with the seller.

 

[MissTyc]

The last thing I'd want as a buyer is for my new insurance to have my horse's entire pre ownership vet history ...
However, aside from that, I think the conflict of interest exists only where there is a strong relationship between the seller than the vet. A conflict of interest doesn't imply anything dodgy, just that if there is later a problem it all gets trickier to untangle. My vet is a senior partner. He will happily send another vet form his practice to do a vetting of horses sold from our yard, but as he's been coming here for decades and actually went to school with the yard owner, he won't vet any horse that is being sold to leave the yard. He is happy to vet one that is staying on the yard provided that the current and prospective owner are both present for the vetting. I think that's fair.

 

[Reacher]

When I bought current horse the seller gave me permission to use their vet but their vet refused. Too far away to use my own vet. I think it was Liverpool vet hospital and i’d have preferred to have used them over a vet picked out of the yellow pages.

 

[The Xmas Furry]

Just remember, there are devious folk out there.
Such as those who claim not to be dealers as they only ever sell 3 or so a year.
They still could use vet practice A for all ailments and vet practice B for routine stuff like jabs and teeth. Dodgy dealers used to do this, some people still do.

 

[spacefaer]

My (brilliant) vet will no longer do vettings. He's fed up of the hassle and they're too time consuming .

He vetted a horse of ours for a client several years ago and it turned out it had a previously unknown but incontrovertible issue. We couldn't argue in any way but it was a bit awkward for a while.

 

[Caol Ila]

When I bought Foinavon, his seller's vet told me that it is their strict policy to not do vettings for their clients' horses. Seller and I had agreed that we would use her vet, so long as they were okay with that. They weren't. As not very many vets serve that area, I had to ring around to find someone who could do it in a timely way.

 

[MuffettMischief]

Can you please tell me how I can distinguish the one that is from the ones that aren't?

There has been at least 1 prosecution. It is sound advice unless you know the seller and the vet very well. The vet record can be released without using the seller's vet.
.

no idea. You? It was just a musing. I just can’t help feeling a bit sorry for vets to have their integrity questioned and assume they are all dodgy although I can see why people are wary due to there having been prosecutions previously

 

[ycbm]

no idea. You? It was just a musing. I just can’t help feeling a bit sorry for vets to have their integrity questioned and assume they are all dodgy although I can see why people are wary due to there having been prosecutions previously

Nobody is assuming all vets are dodgy.

The point is that it is absolutely known that at least one vet has in recent years been prosecuted for colluding with sellers to pass unfit horses. And nobody can easily tell from the outside which one of a thousand vets that bad apple is going to be. Which is why it is never absolutely safe to use the seller's vet unless you know the seller well, preferably both the vet and the seller, and not always even then.
.