# Trading Standards



## Frantastic (6 February 2012)

Has anyone had any joy going thorugh trading standards re horse dealers?  They were not particularly helpful when I first contacted them in August but I am still stuck with a horse that is not the schoolmaster he was sold as  the deaer has ignored all my letters.
I am based in the South East.


----------



## Ranyhyn (6 February 2012)

I have never heard of them being useful.


----------



## Clippy (6 February 2012)

The trouble with them is that unless they have a file on a particular trader, they tend not to do much 

If the trader was well known to them and they've had lots of complaints, then they would probably take action but if it's a random complaint then you probably won't get much joy


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (6 February 2012)

have dealt with in relation to my pony and friends  horses being kept seize by her ex  they basically did jack ****

we   never  got them back


----------



## s4sugar (6 February 2012)

Call the trading standards office for the area of the trader rather than Consumer Direct.

 Make sure you get a reference number and ask about small claims (assuming your claim is under the £5,000 limit).

You may have legal advice as part of your insurance - horse, BHS or home policy so make use of it.


----------



## Frantastic (6 February 2012)

Thank you everyone that replied. I gave them another try and actually spoke to someone called Melanie - really helpful. Because the inital vetting blood test screening showed evidence of a sedative she has given me a outline for a letter - re Sale of goods act 1979. Horse not fit for purpose. You can download a template off their website too.
I used to work in a dealing yard myself - so am aware of how horses can change through lack of positve handling or work. There are some good dealers out there - as usual it's the minority that ruin it for the majority.


----------



## Clippy (6 February 2012)

If the horse was sedated when it was vetted, then you would have to succeed with any action you take, Trading Standards or not. You are entitled to a full refund plus what it cost to have the horse vetted because it was a total sham if the horse was sedated


----------



## Frantastic (7 February 2012)

Thanks Clippy. What I did not realise with bloodtests is you have to pay to pull them. It cost me £255 for the screening and a further £750 for the analaysis. They are kept for 6months but are property of the vet that vetted.  I have not had the full analysis done as I thought the vet would pressurise her to refund. As it was obvious after the event he had vetted at the yard before, despite her claiming she did not know the vet, another customer was having a horse vetted that day and had left the number.... All a very good act. But I have been told since that the vet should have disclosed 'knowing the seller' to me before the vetting. Not sure if that is correct? When I look back everything was so glaringly obvious - its  embarrassing - what an idiot I've been!


----------



## Kat (7 February 2012)

In that case you may wish to report the vet to trading standards and the RCVS too. 

It is always worth reporting to trading standards, often they cannot do anything until they have a number of similar complaints or a serious enough complaint but complaints which aren't followed up are kept on file for future reference. Further they can be helpful in advising you on a claim under the sale of goods act. 

If the horse cost more than £5k it is probably worth getting proper legal advice about bringing a claim.

If you bring a claim you can recover the costs of having the bloods dealt with too, and add that to the value of the horse and transport costs etc to get your claim past the £5k limit for the small claims court which means you can recover legal costs and make part 36 offers etc.


----------



## Goldenstar (7 February 2012)

There's no prob with the vet vetting at the yard before but he has to declare if he or she done work for the dealers a horse vet living near a dealing yard is almost bound to have vetted there a lot .
MY BF is an equine vets and she vets on some yards most weeks during the sumner.
If you think the vet was dishonest you should of course report him but why analyse the blood if he knew something was up just get some from another horse and send that .
Also are you sure that the sedation was not present for a good reason ie clipping in the run up to the vetting these are things you will have to able to prove if you take this further .


----------



## Ideal (7 February 2012)

Frantastic said:



			Thanks Clippy. What I did not realise with bloodtests is you have to pay to pull them. It cost me £255 for the screening and a further £750 for the analaysis. They are kept for 6months but are property of the vet that vetted.  I have not had the full analysis done as I thought the vet would pressurise her to refund. As it was obvious after the event he had vetted at the yard before, despite her claiming she did not know the vet, another customer was having a horse vetted that day and had left the number.... All a very good act. But I have been told since that the vet should have disclosed 'knowing the seller' to me before the vetting. Not sure if that is correct? When I look back everything was so glaringly obvious - its  embarrassing - what an idiot I've been!
		
Click to expand...

Exactly the same has happened to me , I feel like a huge idiot too . I think I got caught up in the excitement of buying my first ever horse . I have PM'd you .


----------



## Clippy (7 February 2012)

I might be wrong, but the disclosure only needs to be mentioned if the vet has treated the horse in question and I also think it's quite a recent ruling too. Wasn't a declaration to be included on the new vetting certificates?

Vets ask sellers if the horse has had any kind of medication recently and if it has, then the vetting would be postponed. Obviously, a vetting done on a horse which had been sedated or treated with painkillers could potentially be very misleading and I can't imagne any vet going ahead under these circumstances


----------



## zaminda (8 February 2012)

My friend took soomeone to court (small claims) over a horse they bought. He had described himself as a novice rider, which I would say he wasn't really, and the horse threw him into a wall at the saddle fitting. The court ordered the woman to take back the horse, and even asked him if he wanted to refile for damages as well, so it went pretty well.


----------

