# Horse bought from dealer.......



## WeeLassie (21 March 2017)

Went to see a horse at a dealers. Liked him, but it looked like he had a lump on his knee. Asked dealer ' you said there are no blemishes or bumps' in the advert- he said no, hes clean legged. So I thought I must be mistaken. I trusted the chap. The day I got him home I phoned dealer and left message saying 'theres definately a lump on this horses knee.' No word from dealer. Rode the horse gently- walk and trot- for 3 weeks as I knew he wasnt fit and was young. He seemed fine. Not lame, soI thought it was a cosmetic blemish. After a month I started cantering - horse was immediately lame. And after a canter he trotted lame too.
I messaged dealer to say the horse was lame,no reply. I took the horse to a vet today, seems he has arthritis.
Could I ask dealer if he would take the horse back? Is he likely too? What if he offers me a swap? would I have to accept that? He knew I wanted the horse for hunting,jumping etc.
Thanks for reading.


----------



## asterope (21 March 2017)

Did you have the horse vetted?


----------



## WeeLassie (21 March 2017)

No, but the vet said the arthritis wouldnt have shown upin a normal vetting anyway unless I had had x rays.


----------



## Dave's Mam (21 March 2017)

I'd have challenged the dealer while you were there, in front of the horse.  "What's that lump on his knee?"


----------



## WeeLassie (21 March 2017)

I know, thinking back, I should have done. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The horse was so exactly what I was looking for I  suppose I  heard and saw what I wanted, and was blind to the reality!


----------



## eggs (21 March 2017)

It doesn't sound as though you got the horse vetted.  If you had you could have asked the vet to investigate the 'lump' on the horse's knee.  Do you have a written receipt from the dealer to say that the horse is clean limbed?


----------



## WeeLassie (21 March 2017)

I have the original advert that says no blemishes.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (21 March 2017)

Trading standards,  return horse as not fit for purpose under the sales of goods act.
Tell dealer you are returning on x day and you require reimbursement.


----------



## alainax (21 March 2017)

Your  issue with the right to return within 30 days is you noticed the "fault" prior to purchase and chose to purchase anyway. 

If you choose to peruse it the first instance will be to write a letter to the dealer quoting consumer rights act 2015 and your right to return for a refund. Check out th citizens advice websites for templates.

Was it a well known central Scotland dealer?


----------



## Amymay (21 March 2017)

WeeLassie said:



			I know, thinking back, I should have done. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
*The horse was so exactly what I was looking for *I  suppose I  heard and saw what I wanted, and was blind to the reality!
		
Click to expand...

There you have it. There's no misrepresentation.  You also saw the lump and chose to continue with the purchase without the benefit of a vetting.

I'd be surprised if you had any come back.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (21 March 2017)

amymay said:



			There you have it. There's no misrepresentation.  You also saw the lump and chose to continue with the purchase without the benefit of a vetting.

I'd be surprised if you had any come back.
		
Click to expand...

Oops, I missed that bit.

OP, I agree with amymay in that it's your problem as you accepted damaged horse.


----------



## stormox (21 March 2017)

amymay said:



			There you have it. There's no misrepresentation.  You also saw the lump and chose to continue with the purchase without the benefit of a vetting.
.
		
Click to expand...

Surely there is misrepresentation if the advert says 'no blemishes' and there is one, whether OP saw it or not at the viewing? 
 And as FuzzyFurry says, the horse isnt fit for purpose.


----------



## Amymay (21 March 2017)

stormox said:



			Surely there is misrepresentation if the advert says 'no blemishes' and there is one, whether OP saw it or not at the viewing? 
 And as FuzzyFurry says, the horse isnt fit for purpose.
		
Click to expand...

You could argue that, yes. But as the op still went ahead with the purchase having noted it themselves it could be argued that the 'misrepresentation' was accepted and not thought to be important enough to abandon the purchase.


----------



## stormox (21 March 2017)

The horse stil lisnt 'fit for purpose' though, if the dealer knew OP wanted it for hunting and jumping and it went lame after 3 weeks with a pre-existing condition.  Is there any time limit for returning horses for this reason?


----------



## Amymay (21 March 2017)

What proof is there that the dealer knew the horse was not fit for purpose?


----------



## stormox (21 March 2017)

amymay said:



			What proof is there that the dealer knew the horse was not fit for purpose?
		
Click to expand...

Does he have to know, though? You can return a kettle to a shop as 'not fit for purpose' even  if the shop didn't know it wouldn't work when you bought it. And I was told the same law covered horses...


----------



## DabDab (21 March 2017)

amymay said:



			What proof is there that the dealer knew the horse was not fit for purpose?
		
Click to expand...

This exactly - the op didn't discuss the lump with the dealer, the dealer maintained that they believed the horse to be blemish free throughout the transaction. The only person who definitely knew of the presence of the lump was the OP. 
OP - you have been rather silly in this purchase, probably best to write it off and learn from it.  If you do want to pursue it then best to speak to a specialist solicitor before saying too much more on the internet as a lot will depend on what you and the dealer can be proven to have known/said


----------



## Amymay (21 March 2017)

stormox said:



			Does he have to know, though? You can return a kettle to a shop as 'not fit for purpose' even  if the shop didn't know it wouldn't work when you bought it. And I was told the same law covered horses...
		
Click to expand...

You may be right, I don't know.

As usual, the horse pays the bill.  Why oh why don't inexperienced people take someone who knows what they're doing with them when buying a horse? And why don't they get it vetted? So many of these situations are completely avoidable.


----------



## DabDab (21 March 2017)

stormox said:



			Does he have to know, though? You can return a kettle to a shop as 'not fit for purpose' even  if the shop didn't know it wouldn't work when you bought it. And I was told the same law covered horses...
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but would you buy a kettle you knew didn't work? 
If you bought a kettle with a small piece of plastic broke off it that you admitted to knowing about at the time of purchase I'm not sure a shop would be keen to refund you when you decide a month later that you now no longer want it because of the same damage.


----------



## ester (21 March 2017)

Of course a lump would have come up in a vetting, maybe not a diagosis but further investigation ie an xray would have been advised if you still wanted to go ahead with the purchase. 

did you view the horse before purchase? It is not clear because you say you saw the lump once he was home? If not I am wondering if you have some more protection under distance selling regs too.


----------



## ycbm (21 March 2017)

Sorry, I can't see how you can win this one either way. Either there was a lump and you saw the lump and you purchased the horse in spite of the lump ...  or , more likely imo, the dealer will continue to insist that there was no lump when the horse was purchased and the lump is subsequent to the purchase, since you willingly purchased a horse described as free from blemishes after you had seen it, and have no proof whatsoever that the lump was there when you bought it. 

I think your only option is to write the horse off and buy another, this time with a vetting, sorry.


----------



## Sugar_and_Spice (21 March 2017)

I'm not sure the issue is the lump though.  The OP saw the lump, or thought they saw an abnormal lump, but on being told the horse was clean limbed believed they'd made a mistake (about the lump being abnormal, I mean knees do have a degree of lumpiness about them and if you don't know where the normal lumps of a joint are...).  But at no point did the OP see arthritis, nor would the vet have seen arthritis (according to the OP).  I'm a bit puzzled about a vetting not picking it up, maybe a 2 stage vetting wouldn't have and perhaps the OP couldn't have had a 5 stage even if they'd wanted to, because the horse wasn't in work?  

So the way I see it, the OP didn't knowingly buy an arthritic horse.  The dealer doesn't have to have known about the arthritis for the OP to get a refund.  The dealer knew the purpose of buying a horse, they also said the horse was clean limbed when it's reasonable to expect they would have been aware that it wasn't.  The law changed and I think there's now 6mths for the return of a horse with a problem that makes it unfit for purpose (business sales, not private), whether the dealer knew about the problem or not.

ETA: whether the lump was there or not, a vet has now investigated and says there's arthritis.  I'm aware arthritis can occur following an injury, but is it possible that the arthritis in this horse has occurred in only 3wks since the purchase?  If the vet says not, I think the OP has a case to return the horse for refund.


----------



## [59668] (22 March 2017)

You didn't canter the horse when you tried it. You didn't push the dealer re the lump. You didn't have the horse vetted. You bought as seen. Sorry but you have no come back.


----------



## limestonelil (22 March 2017)

So sorry for your horrible situation OP. I bought a vacuum cleaner (not top range but not a cheapo) which was not as advertised and got my money back after 4 months and found out eventually it was discontinued due to design fault! So maybe you could do not as described, unsuitable for purpose etc. So many differing opinions on here and just seen the post about the kettle! Hope it works out satisfactorily for you.


----------



## ycbm (22 March 2017)

Sugar_and_Spice said:



			I'm not sure the issue is the lump
		
Click to expand...

I do think it might focus on the lump if it went to court. On the information we've got, weelassie has a right to return the horse. But in court, I think the conversation might go

- the horse was specifically advertised as clean limbed

- the buyer bought it with no record of it being other than clean limbed

- the horse now has a lump that was not there when it was sold

- the horse is now lame when it was not when it was sold or the buyer would not have bought it

- there are signs of arthritis on x ray that may have been pre existing, but there are plenty of horses doing the job that the buyer said she wanted who would show similar if they were x rayed so that does not necessarily make him unfit for purpose.

- conclusion, the horse has hurt itself since it was purchased and that has caused lameness.



Weelassie, in theory the law is completely on your side, but in court things often don't go as expected. Your best bet, I think, would be to have a solicitor send one letter to the dealer demanding a refund. But if you get no response, in your shoes I'd call it quits and learn from the experience. 

What do you intend to do with the horse?  With arthritis in a knee at a young age, I would be looking at the hard option, I'm afraid.


----------



## WeeLassie (22 March 2017)

amymay said:



			You may be right, I don't know.

As usual, the horse pays the bill.  Why oh why don't inexperienced people take someone who knows what they're doing with them when buying a horse? And why don't they get it vetted? So many of these situations are completely avoidable.
		
Click to expand...

The unfortunate thing is I am experienced, and that was why I didnt get the horse vetted. I saw the lump when I viewed the horse, but said nothing, I had been looking  so long (8 months) for a nice young horse of a certain breeding -this horse is 4-  when one came up, I wanted him, had known the seller for over 20 years even though he's only been a dealer the last 3yrs, and unfortunately trusted him. The lump is visible on the advert photos too.Love is blind as they say!! 
I know the answer,, the dealer hasnt replied to my messages, the first one less than 24 hours after I took the horse home, only thing to do is have the horse PTS and start looking again.
My own fault, you are all right. If someone else had taken me to look at that horse in an advisory capacity I would have said 'dont buy that'.


----------



## Cahill (22 March 2017)

the dealer would say the lump appeared after you bought it.


----------



## WeeLassie (22 March 2017)

Cahill said:



			the dealer would say the lump appeared after you bought it.
		
Click to expand...

It shows in the advert.


----------



## Spiritedly (22 March 2017)

I would have thought the issue would be whether the lump was the cause of lameness or symptom of arthritis. If it is then the seller could argue that buyer was aware of this and still went ahead with the purchase, if however the lump is purely cosmetic, unrelated to the arthritis and wouldn't have shown on a vetting then surely the 'not fit for purpose' rule would apply?


----------



## ycbm (22 March 2017)

WeeLassie said:



			It shows in the advert.
		
Click to expand...

Well that changes things a bit!  It makes the lump irrelevant. It was there, there has been no accident since to cause it.

I think you need to consult a solicitor experienced in horse sales, and at the very least send the dealer a demand for your money back.


----------



## Spiritedly (22 March 2017)

DabDab said:



			Yes, but would you buy a kettle you knew didn't work? 
If you bought a kettle with a small piece of plastic broke off it that you admitted to knowing about at the time of purchase I'm not sure a shop would be keen to refund you when you decide a month later that you now no longer want it because of the same damage.
		
Click to expand...

If you bought a kettle with plastic broken off and a month later it stopped working because of an electrical fault then you could return it though as the cause of it no longer working is unrelated to the cosmetic damage. The op has said she was willing to keep the horse even with the lump so the question is whether the lump is the cause/symptom of the lameness. If it is then it's probably a case that the horse was bought even though the buyer was aware of 'damage' but if the cause is something unrelated to the lump then it's a different matter and the op may have a case.


----------



## WeeLassie (22 March 2017)

ycbm said:



			Well that changes things a bit!  It makes the lump irrelevant. It was there, there has been no accident since to cause it.

I think you need to consult a solicitor experienced in horse sales, and at the very least send the dealer a demand for your money back.
		
Click to expand...

Would the fact that the lump shows in the advert not actually re-enforce the fact I bought the horse knowing there was a lump? You do  have to enlarge the advert to see it though.


----------



## DabDab (22 March 2017)

Spiritedly said:



			I would have thought the issue would be whether the lump was the cause of lameness or symptom of arthritis. If it is then the seller could argue that buyer was aware of this and still went ahead with the purchase, if however the lump is purely cosmetic, unrelated to the arthritis and wouldn't have shown on a vetting then surely the 'not fit for purpose' rule would apply?
		
Click to expand...

Yes I agree - I think that would probably be the best line of argument. Ignore the lump, the horse has arthritis (not related to lump) and try to return on that basis....though if it were me I still think I'd just write it off as my mistake
OP - never mind, we all make mistakes and become blinded sometimes. I've bought several horses with defects that I decided were cosmetic, and it hasn't yet bitten me but every one was a gamble (all were declared by the seller though).


----------



## DabDab (22 March 2017)

Spiritedly said:



			If you bought a kettle with plastic broken off and a month later it stopped working because of an electrical fault then you could return it though as the cause of it no longer working is unrelated to the cosmetic damage. The op has said she was willing to keep the horse even with the lump so the question is whether the lump is the cause/symptom of the lameness. If it is then it's probably a case that the horse was bought even though the buyer was aware of 'damage' but if the cause is something unrelated to the lump then it's a different matter and the op may have a case.
		
Click to expand...

Hehe, cross posted....yes I think we agree


----------



## DabDab (22 March 2017)

Spiritedly said:



			If you bought a kettle with plastic broken off and a month later it stopped working because of an electrical fault then you could return it though as the cause of it no longer working is unrelated to the cosmetic damage. The op has said she was willing to keep the horse even with the lump so the question is whether the lump is the cause/symptom of the lameness. If it is then it's probably a case that the horse was bought even though the buyer was aware of 'damage' but if the cause is something unrelated to the lump then it's a different matter and the op may have a case.
		
Click to expand...

Hehe, cross posted, yes I think we agree


----------



## Sugar_and_Spice (22 March 2017)

WeeLassie said:



			Would the fact that the lump shows in the advert not actually re-enforce the fact I bought the horse knowing there was a lump? You do  have to enlarge the advert to see it though.
		
Click to expand...

It also reinforces your claim that the dealer lied about the horse being clean limbed.  What has your vet said about the lump and it's relation to the arthritis?


----------



## WeeLassie (22 March 2017)

Sugar_and_Spice said:



			It also reinforces your claim that the dealer lied about the horse being clean limbed.  What has your vet said about the lump and it's relation to the arthritis?
		
Click to expand...

Basically he said that the lump was a symptom of the arthritis, but there was arthritis elsewhere in the knee, and probably in other joints too, although it could be limited to the knee if caused by trauma.


----------



## ester (22 March 2017)

WL if you do a search you will be able to find the list of equine solicitors that Peter Natt posts, unless you are a bhs gold member?


----------



## Sugar_and_Spice (22 March 2017)

So if you had those other suspected joints investigated and there was arthritis, would that prove a pre-existing condition?  Depends too if the horse was expensive enough that a bit spent on investigation, enabling you to hopefully get your money back from the dealer, is worth it.


----------



## WeeLassie (22 March 2017)

ester said:



			WL if you do a search you will be able to find the list of equine solicitors that Peter Natt posts, unless you are a bhs gold member?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, BHS gold member.  I will ring them. But I consider myself really silly not having checked the horse over properly or queried things. I think its entirely my problem, and I have to deal with the consequences.


----------



## WeeLassie (22 March 2017)

Sugar_and_Spice said:



			So if you had those other suspected joints investigated and there was arthritis, would that prove a pre-existing condition?  Depends too if the horse was expensive enough that a bit spent on investigation, enabling you to hopefully get your money back from the dealer, is worth it.
		
Click to expand...

It would cost more than the horse cost, so not worth it. And if the horse went back to the dealer, what would happen to him? He is the sweetest kindest chap. PTS is kinder than being passed around.


----------



## ester (22 March 2017)

You may have been a bit silly but that doesn't entirely absolve the professional seller either.


----------



## ycbm (22 March 2017)

WeeLassie said:



			Would the fact that the lump shows in the advert not actually re-enforce the fact I bought the horse knowing there was a lump? You do  have to enlarge the advert to see it though.
		
Click to expand...


Yes, but most horses have lumps, and as it's on the photo he can't claim that it was a new lump which has caused new lameness. The lump is now an irrelevance, imo. The question is whether the horse was fot for purpose, and he wasn't. Lame at three weeks, on record, I think you have a very good case.


----------



## ycbm (22 March 2017)

WeeLassie said:



			It would cost more than the horse cost, so not worth it. And if the horse went back to the dealer, what would happen to him? He is the sweetest kindest chap. PTS is kinder than being passed around.
		
Click to expand...

If you can afford it, I would PTS for the sake of the horse. Definitely the kindest thing to do for him, unfortunately.


----------



## ycbm (22 March 2017)

WeeLassie said:



			Yes, BHS gold member.  I will ring them. But I consider myself really silly not having checked the horse over properly or queried things. I think its entirely my problem, and I have to deal with the consequences.
		
Click to expand...

You are obviously a very level headed, and probably seriously nice, person!


----------



## SpringArising (22 March 2017)

amymay said:



			There you have it. There's no misrepresentation.  You also saw the lump and chose to continue with the purchase without the benefit of a vetting.

I'd be surprised if you had any come back.
		
Click to expand...

Me too. Why did you buy the horse and take his word that it was clean-limbed when the lump was literally right in front of you? Also, why are you thinking it's arthritis? At this point it could be anything. Is it bilaterally lame or just lame on the leg with the blemish?

The horse was sold as seen and you made an informed decision to buy it knowing there was 'something'. As far as the dealer is concerned, he sold you a sound horse, and it's gone lame in your care.


----------



## ljohnsonsj (22 March 2017)

A vetting would of picked up on the lump even if they didn't know it was arthritis. Put this one down to bad experience and learn from it that's what I would do.


----------



## WeeLassie (22 March 2017)

SpringArising said:



			Me too. Why did you buy the horse and take his word that it was clean-limbed when the lump was literally right in front of you? Also, why are you thinking it's arthritis? At this point it could be anything. Is it bilaterally lame or just lame on the leg with the blemish?

The horse was sold as seen and you made an informed decision to buy it knowing there was 'something'. As far as the dealer is concerned, he sold you a sound horse, and it's gone lame in your care.
		
Click to expand...

I think it was arthritis because I have taken the horse toa vet and he says it is.

The horse wasnt 'sold as seen' he was sold as sound, fit for purpose and the advert explicitly said 'no lumps bumps or blemishes.
Why did I buy a horse with a lump? I saw it and said to dealer ' Is there anything I should know about this horse? Has he any lumps or other problems' and he said 'no,he hasnt'.  So I assumed it was nothing, just a cosmetic blemish. I didnt even say I'd seen it till the next day.

I know I was stupid. 'Love on the rebound' maybe. I had just had a much loved horse put down age 7, was desperate to get another and fell in love........


----------



## SpringArising (22 March 2017)

WeeLassie said:



			I think it was arthritis because I have taken the horse toa vet and he says it is.

The horse wasnt 'sold as seen' he was sold as sound, fit for purpose
		
Click to expand...

The horse _was_ sold as seen. You saw the horse and decided to buy him as he was - lump and all. 

And the horse _was_ sound when you bought it and fit for purpose at the time of sale. And as someone else said, how could the seller have known what was to come in the future?

This is bad luck that you can chalk up to experience. It's rubbish that it hasn't worked out but I think that you were a bit blasé maybe. What did the vet say re. the correlation of arthritis and the lump? Are they even related?


----------



## SpottyMare (22 March 2017)

WeeLassie, please go and see a specialist solicitor armed with all the information you have before you make any decisions.  From what I can see, most of the opinion on this thread is just that - opinion.  You need to talk to someone who is suitably qualified.


----------



## WeeLassie (22 March 2017)

SpringArising said:



			The horse _was_ sold as seen. You saw the horse and decided to buy him as he was - lump and all. 

And the horse _was_ sound when you bought it and fit for purpose at the time of sale. And as someone else said, how could the seller have known what was to come in the future?
		
Click to expand...

 The thing is, I am not sure the horse was sound at point of sale. The lump was there, vet  says it is part of the arthritic changes, and as the horse didnt show any obvious lameness until it was cantered on a tight circle, which I didnt do until I'd had him 3 weeks, it is possible he wasnt sound then.
But I have downloaded the videos off the advert, and am going to show them to the vet. It maybe he WAS lame then, but very slight,more like a shortening of the stride than lame.


----------



## Amymay (22 March 2017)

You're not sure he was sound - yet still bought him?  And your still possibly going to pursue the seller?

I'm a bit &#128562; to be honest.


----------



## ester (22 March 2017)

I think WL only meant from the POV that she isn't a vet, it might have been subtle, hence her getting the vet to check out the sale vids. 

I am confused by those who think sold as seen applies someway in law? It doesn't for inanimate objects, or horses. 

OP has admitted she was foolish but she also purchased from a dealer who must, legally ensure they are selling goods fit for purpose so the onus is not totally on her.


----------



## Amymay (22 March 2017)

ester said:



			I think WL only meant from the POV that she isn't a vet, it might have been subtle, hence her getting the vet to check out the sale vids.
		
Click to expand...

But claims to be experienced enough to not need a vetting done on a horse she wishes to purchase. Presumably because she could spot the subtleties of mild lameness (or anything else) should it be present.


----------



## Goldenstar (22 March 2017)

People please please take off your rose tinted specs when viewing horses take the most experianced dispassionate horsey friend you have with you in case you get overexcited .
Don't hope for the best and ignore things and no body is too experianced to bypass vetting unless your happy  to take what ever fate throws at you .
As always I feel heartily sorry for the poor horse .


----------



## ester (22 March 2017)

Hindsight is always a wonderful thing but your post suggested she thought he was lame at the time and went ahead with purchase, which really would be nuts in the extreme . I was just saying I don't think that was what was meant. 

I think I am ok enough at spotting lameness, I don't and wouldn't expect to spot the subtleties that my vet does and I'd expect most experienced horse owners to be the same. Frankly there is also a reason my vet bought his biomechanic kit, because he (with a special interest in vettings) doesn't always spot them easily either...


----------



## WeeLassie (22 March 2017)

ester said:



			Hindsight is always a wonderful thing but your post suggested she thought he was lame at the time and went ahead with purchase, which really would be nuts in the extreme . I was just saying I don't think that was what was meant. 

I think I am ok enough at spotting lameness, I don't and wouldn't expect to spot the subtleties that my vet does and I'd expect most experienced horse owners to be the same. Frankly there is also a reason my vet bought his biomechanic kit, because he (with a special interest in vettings) doesn't always spot them easily either...
		
Click to expand...

No, I didnt think he was lame when I bought him, nor from looking at the videos. The videos are round a sand arena in trot, not straight in line up and down. I only said I was going to get the vet to look  at them, in case he sees anything I hadnt. If the horse goes back to the dealer, he will be no worse off than if I hadnt been daft and bought him in the first place.


----------



## Goldenstar (22 March 2017)

He will still a lame horse faceing an uncertain future ,breaks my heart .


----------



## Amymay (22 March 2017)

WeeLassie said:



			No, I didnt think he was lame when I bought him, nor from looking at the videos. The videos are round a sand arena in trot, not straight in line up and down. I only said I was going to get the vet to look  at them, in case he sees anything I hadnt. If the horse goes back to the dealer, he will be no worse off than if I hadnt been daft and bought him in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

You intimated further up that you thought he may have been.


----------



## WeeLassie (22 March 2017)

amymay said:



			You intimated further up that you thought he may have been.
		
Click to expand...

I didnt say "I thought he may have been"....... I said "He may have been".......... and I, afterhaving him 3 weeks and finding out he  wasnt sound, then going to the vet and hearing about the arthritis, subsequently downloaded  the videos and am going to show them to the vet and see what he thinks.

I do not know if I would have more, or less of a chance with the dealer if the vet thinks he showed lame before I bought him


----------



## ycbm (22 March 2017)

WeeLassie said:



			If the horse goes back to the dealer, he will be no worse off than if I hadnt been daft and bought him in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

But you did.

I hope that if you don't have enough connection with the horse to want to prevent him being passed from pillar to post in future, that you have enough concern for the next person whose heart/bank balance he is going to break, and the person after that, until someone does the right thing and puts him down.


----------



## stormox (22 March 2017)

ycbm said:



			But you did.

I hope that if you don't have enough connection with the horse to want to prevent him being passed from pillar to post in future, that you have enough concern for the next person whose heart/bank balance he is going to break, and the person after that, until someone does the right thing and puts him down.
		
Click to expand...

That is VERY unfair to make people feel guilty like that. Horses are returned to sellers for behaviour/soundness problems all the time. If they werent returned, the seller/dealer has made his money and got his reward.
And no one should be rewarded for being dishonest.If they are it makes the problem of 'dodgy dealers' worse.


----------



## oldie48 (22 March 2017)

Well I take a rather different view but I'm not lawyer. Anyone, experienced or not is entitled to a refund if what they buy is not fit for purpose and in my view, this horse is not fit for what he was bought for. If he went lame with an arthritic condition once he had been brought into proper work then clearly he was not fit for purpose.It doesn't matter if the op was foolish, failed to get a vetting or ignored something that  indicated a problem, the dealer sold her a blemish free horse suitable for hunting etc and the horse is not that. I find it quite sad that on the forum we choose to put the blame on the victim of a dishonest dealer rather than support her. Dealers like this stay in business because they get away with it and this is not the first time I've read posts telling purchasers who have been defrauded by dealers to put up and shut up. If you deal in horses as a business you are bound by the same laws as someone selling a vacuum cleaner or anything else for that matter.


----------



## teacups (22 March 2017)

oldie48 said:



			Well I take a rather different view but I'm not lawyer. Anyone, experienced or not is entitled to a refund if what they buy is not fit for purpose and in my view, this horse is not fit for what he was bought for. If he went lame with an arthritic condition once he had been brought into proper work then clearly he was not fit for purpose.It doesn't matter if the op was foolish, failed to get a vetting or ignored something that  indicated a problem, the dealer sold her a blemish free horse suitable for hunting etc and the horse is not that. I find it quite sad that on the forum we choose to put the blame on the victim of a dishonest dealer rather than support her. Dealers like this stay in business because they get away with it and this is not the first time I've read posts telling purchasers who have been defrauded by dealers to put up and shut up. If you deal in horses as a business you are bound by the same laws as someone selling a vacuum cleaner or anything else for that matter.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for putting that so well.


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 March 2017)

OP, when asked upthread whether you'd consider veterinary investigations to find out what's going on you reply:- 



WeeLassie said:



			It would cost more than the horse cost, so not worth it.
		
Click to expand...

Given that £1000 would pay for a decent investigation, how much did you pay for this 'unblemished' 4 year old? Did he not seem rather cheap?


----------



## Amymay (22 March 2017)

oldie48 said:



			I find it quite sad that on the forum we choose to put the blame on the victim of a dishonest dealer rather than support her.
		
Click to expand...

I absolutely take your point, but actually you'll  find that in the majority of cases like this the 'victim' is supported 100% on the forum.

In this case though I find it difficult to offer that support. Sorry.  The OP saw the lump on the knee. Questioned the lump on the knee. Discounted the lump on the knee. Her _experience _ led her to the conclusion that it wasn't of any significance. That same experience made her conclude that she needed no other input in to the purchase (professional or otherwise). She states clearly that the horse was everything she wanted - lump and all.  Now apparently the horse is fit only for destruction as it was possibly lame when she bought it and the lump _is_ an issue because the vendor advertised the horse as being clean limbed (despite purchaser noting the lump as above).

Sometimes you've just got to take responsibility as a purchaser for the mistakes you make - no matter how expensive.


----------



## Flyermc (22 March 2017)

Amymay - i completely see what you mean, but the dealer also advertised the horse has blemish free and dismissed the comment made by the buyer when the lump was noticed. Surely that's dishonest?


----------



## Goldenstar (22 March 2017)

I am with Amymay if I make a bad choice I deal with either with care or PTS .
Once I pay for a horse that's it down to me whatever happens .
Poor boy four years old and his life ruined so so sad.
I hope Epona gives him a soft landing .


----------



## Amymay (22 March 2017)

Flyermc said:



			Amymay - i completely see what you mean, but the dealer also advertised the horse has blemish free and dismissed the comment made by the buyer when the lump was noticed. Surely that's dishonest?
		
Click to expand...

It may have been advertised as blemish free but the op chose to purchase _with _ that blemish after discussion with the vendor. She can't have it both ways.


----------



## oldie48 (22 March 2017)

amymay said:



			I absolutely take your point, but actually you'll  find that in the majority of cases like this the 'victim' is supported 100% on the forum.

In this case though I find it difficult to offer that support. Sorry.  The OP saw the lump on the knee. Questioned the lump on the knee. Discounted the lump on the knee. Her _experience _ led her to the conclusion that it wasn't of any significance. That same experience made her conclude that she needed no other input in to the purchase (professional or otherwise). She states clearly that the horse was everything she wanted - lump and all.  Now apparently the horse is fit only for destruction as it was possibly lame when she bought it and the lump _is_ an issue because the vendor advertised the horse as being clean limbed (despite purchaser noting the lump as above).

Sometimes you've just got to take responsibility as a purchaser for the mistakes you make - no matter how expensive.
		
Click to expand...

If you buy from a dealer you are entitled to be sold something fit for purpose and she hasn't been. I think it's pretty clear cut. In some respects the lump is of little significance, three weeks into ownership the horse is lame with arthritis and is not fit for purpose. It's clearly a pre-existing condition and if the dealer didn't know about it, he should have because it's his business.


----------



## ycbm (22 March 2017)

stormox said:



			That is VERY unfair to make people feel guilty like that. Horses are returned to sellers for behaviour/soundness problems all the time. If they werent returned, the seller/dealer has made his money and got his reward.
And no one should be rewarded for being dishonest.If they are it makes the problem of 'dodgy dealers' worse.
		
Click to expand...

OP had previously posted that she would PTS rather than have the horse passed the horse on to other people.  In the context of that, my post was perfectly fair.

There is also no evidence that this was a dodgy dealer. He quite possibly sold a sound horse and had no idea it would go lame, he's known the buyer twenty years, it wouldn't be common to sell someone you've known that long a horse you know is not sound.

I am with Goldenstar. I buy a horse, it's my responsibility to safeguard that horse's future. I would be sending one solicitors letter to the seller but if he fights giving a refund or won't guarantee to have the horse PTS, I'd organise it myself.

The OP has already indicated that she can afford to do this, but appears to have changed her mind about whether she is going to.


----------



## stormox (22 March 2017)

So, in general, not in this particular case, do people think that dodgy dealers shouldnt be made to take the horse back, and anyone who is mis-sold or buys a lame/unsound/ naughty  horse  should accept they were done,or made a mistake and have the horse PTS for the horses sake and the 'dodgy dealer'keep the money??


----------



## Goldenstar (22 March 2017)

stormox said:



			So, in general, not in this particular case, do people think that dodgy dealers shouldnt be made to take the horse back, and anyone who is mis-sold or buys a lame/unsound/ naughty  horse  should accept they were done,or made a mistake and have the horse PTS for the horses sake and the 'dodgy dealer'keep the money??
		
Click to expand...

I don't care what others do that's up to them .
My horses that's up to me .


----------



## Amymay (22 March 2017)

stormox said:



			So, in general, not in this particular case, do people think that dodgy dealers shouldnt be made to take the horse back, and anyone who is mis-sold or buys a lame/unsound/ naughty  horse  should accept they were done,or made a mistake and have the horse PTS for the horses sake and the 'dodgy dealer'keep the money??
		
Click to expand...

Personally, no of course not.

But buyers have a responsibility too. It's actually not too difficult to buy a horse that does what it says on the tin if you apply a little common sense....


----------



## stormox (22 March 2017)

amymay said:



			But buyers have a responsibility too. It's actually not too difficult to buy a horse that does what it says on the tin if you apply a little common sense....
		
Click to expand...

Looking at the 'dodgy dealer'pages on FB,it seems there are plenty bought that dont do what it says on the tin!!


----------



## ycbm (22 March 2017)

stormox said:



			So, in general, not in this particular case, do people think that dodgy dealers shouldnt be made to take the horse back, and anyone who is mis-sold or buys a lame/unsound/ naughty  horse  should accept they were done,or made a mistake and have the horse PTS for the horses sake and the 'dodgy dealer'keep the money??
		
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself. For the sake of other people who might buy the horse, and the horse itself, if i was not certain that the horse would be PTS I would suck it up and put the horse down.

What other people do is up to them, and I understand why people want their money back. But as a future buyer I thank every other buyer who takes a heartbreaker/savings-eater horse off the market.


----------



## stormox (22 March 2017)

ycbm said:



			What other people do is up to them, and I understand why people want their money back. But as a future buyer I thank every other buyer who takes a heartbreaker/savings-eater horse off the market.
		
Click to expand...

Its not the buyer losing the money I have a problem with, its that the dealer keeps it!!   And that is why these dodgy dealers  have holidays in the sun and drive big cars.


----------



## Amymay (22 March 2017)

stormox said:



			Looking at the 'dodgy dealer'pages on FB,it seems there are plenty bought that dont do what it says on the tin!!
		
Click to expand...

And plenty of buyers who are clueless.


----------



## cundlegreen (22 March 2017)

Having read all of this thread, then gone back and read the first post, the vet stated that it had arthritis. On what was that based? Nowhere does it say this horse was xrayed. For all you saying PTS, unless there are definitive xrays, this could be treatable. On the other hand, I bought a 3 yr old TB, that had passed a vetting at a big NH sale. As soon as I started to break him in, it was obvious that he had lower ringbone. I learn't a lesson about not buying from somewhere with a rubber trot up pad. It can hide a multitude of things....Have to say that if the OP had kept the horse for a month before it went lame, then I don't see that the dealer should take it back. Anything could have happened in the new home.


----------



## popsdosh (23 March 2017)

Ive read the whole thread as well and to be honest what stands out to me is even though there is plenty on this thread about dialogue about this that and the other. Why oh why OP have you not been through it all with a dealer you have known 20yrs or am I missing something. They are the only person that can really put it right.

To be totally blunt a cheap young horse should ring a few alarm bells upfront and to be honest for an experienced horse person why were the basics completely missed out . I never see a horse ridden until it has trotted up sound on a hard surface in straight lines and lunged on a circle. Why pay a vet hundreds to tell you the obvious !

Please people do not label the dealer dishonest as there is no proof they knew about the problem and if they did would they really sell it to somebody they know so well.


----------



## ycbm (23 March 2017)

WeeLassie said:



			No, but the vet said the arthritis wouldnt have shown upin a normal vetting anyway unless I had had x rays.
		
Click to expand...




cundlegreen said:



			Having read all of this thread, then gone back and read the first post, the vet stated that it had arthritis. On what was that based? Nowhere does it say this horse was xrayed. For all you saying PTS, unless there are definitive xrays, this could be treatable..
		
Click to expand...

I took this post to mean that the vet had x rayed? Weelassie, can you clarify?


----------



## WeeLassie (23 March 2017)

ycbm said:



			I took this post to mean that the vet had x rayed? Weelassie, can you clarify?
		
Click to expand...

Yes I took him to the vets (After he was obviously lame when cantered, Id had him 3 weeks) and said there were arthritic changes in the joint.


----------



## Amymay (23 March 2017)

So not x-rayed?


----------



## SpringArising (23 March 2017)

WeeLassie said:



			Yes I took him to the vets (After he was obviously lame when cantered, Id had him 3 weeks) and said there were arthritic changes in the joint.
		
Click to expand...

Are you going to have the horse PTS now? IMO that's the easiest and most humane thing to do. The horse isn't good for you, he won't be good to anyone else, and the seller is likely not going to take him back without a fight (and honestly I wouldn't blame him).


----------



## WeeLassie (23 March 2017)

ycbm said:



			OP had previously posted that she would PTS rather than have the horse passed the horse on to other people.  In the context of that, my post was perfectly fair.

There is also no evidence that this was a dodgy dealer. He quite possibly sold a sound horse and had no idea it would go lame, he's known the buyer twenty years, it wouldn't be common to sell someone you've known that long a horse you know is not sound.

The OP has already indicated that she can afford to do this, but appears to have changed her mind about whether she is going to.
		
Click to expand...

I agree I havent been consistant in saying what Id do, the truth is, I dont know. At first I was upset that this gentle,kind sweet horse who whinnied to see me each morning was unsound, and wanted to do what was best for him. Then it turned to anger against the dealer, a person I knew on the local horsey scene for years, who had been untruthful (whether he knew or not) about the lump. But as a person who sets himself up as an 'expert' he should have looked the horse over carefully before writing the advert. Yes, I am fairly experienced, I should have mentioned it but I would not have had the quantity of horses he has had through his hands. He only had this horse a few days. I was angry that I felt conned, and didn't see why he should get away with it and keep my money.I was also annoyed he hadnt answered my messages, not even to say 'good luck, let me know how you get on' when I said I was going to take him to the vets.

I will let you all know what happens in a few days when Ive had a chance to think, but for the sake of any more unsound horses he might have in the future I think I will try and get him to refund my money and take the horse back.


----------



## twiggy2 (23 March 2017)

How long ago did you buy the horse?
How long had you had the horse when the vet saw it?
And has the horse been x-rayed?
These all effect your chances of refund.


----------



## Damnation (23 March 2017)

OP - Firstly, what an awful situation.

Secondly, hindsight is a great thing, even the best, most experienced can be duped. However, it sounds like perhaps the dealer has been duped too. It took 3 weeks for the lameness to show with you and he only had the horse a few days.

Either way, speak to BHS Gold or an equine solicitor. Find out where you stand from someone who knows the law and isn't emotionally involved.

My last mare was bought with a full 5 stage vet. Infact the vet liked her so much he said if we decided not to buy her he would for his teenage daughter coming off ponies. This vet had horses and competition ponies. Only decent horse vet on the island. First viewing I went on my own, 2nd viewing I went with a very experienced and blunt friend who rode and loved her.

After 3 years of behaviour problems from the onset (firstly put down to her being young), napping, bucking, cold backed, stiffness behind, rodeo displays, being told I was paranoid it was just stiffness because she had been raced at 2 etc. I moved off the Island (no real choice in vets) to Cumbria where a new vet found the slipped disc in her spine instantly.

She had an old shoulder injury that I was aware of and was present at vetting - I was informed that with correct work this would not stop her from being a low level RC type which is what I wanted and she passed the vetting as just that - suitable for RC activities, jumping, flatwork, hacking. 

New vet reconed that she had probably done it at the same time as the shoulder as the injury to her shoulder was large so probably the same incident. (It takes a pretty big force to slip a disc in a horses spine) We talked back through her behaviour and he was almost certain that the disc had been present at time of vetting 3 years previously (although we can't travel back in time and be 100% sure, but looking back on her behaviour I agree with him).

Ultimately she was PTS as a healthy looking 7 year old. Insurance wouldn't pay out for LOU or death.

I suppose my point is that yes vettings have their place, but they don't always protect you.


----------



## Damnation (23 March 2017)

Deleted - duplicated post.


----------



## silv (23 March 2017)

Sorry you are in this situation,  but if the dealer only had the horse a few days and he took 3 weeks to go lame then it seems to me the dealer wouldn't necessarily know he was unsound.


----------



## stormox (23 March 2017)

Surely whether the dealer told a lie or just didnt know, or whether he knew about the lump or not, or whether he knew the horse was lame or not, the buyer is still protected by the 'returning horse as not fit for purpose' law?

Most people are advised to let their new horse settle in for a few days. As this was a young horse, understandably the buyer didnt canter for 2-3 weeks. As soon as she did she saw the lameness and reported it.


----------



## popsdosh (23 March 2017)

stormox said:



			Surely whether the dealer told a lie or just didnt know, or whether he knew about the lump or not, or whether he knew the horse was lame or not, the buyer is still protected by the 'returning horse as not fit for purpose' law?

Most people are advised to let their new horse settle in for a few days. As this was a young horse, understandably the buyer didnt canter for 2-3 weeks. As soon as she did she saw the lameness and reported it.
		
Click to expand...

There is no such' law' just comes under normal consumer law . If it had been reported within 30 days the dealer by law would have to take the goods back and refund without the need for a reason . This new law will eventually change horse dealing as we know it and most likely turn over to much power to the buyer as they will on any whim be able to return and be refunded After 30 days its gets more complicated as you then need a reason to return the goods for a refund which is where the sticking point may be.


----------



## Pigeon (23 March 2017)

amymay said:



			And plenty of buyers who are clueless.
		
Click to expand...

We've been got before (and several near misses) and I wouldn't say we're entirely clueless. You just can't believe how sneaky people are! Have been to see one on a cold day and owners were being meticulous about quartering it's rugs. Asked to see it without a rug and found out why - scars from KS op! Been to see others and have found out through the grapevine that it's had really bad COPD  (ooh so that's why it was out when we arrived) or looked through Facebook and seen owner in a cast because it 'bucked her off for no reason' and is 'evil'. This was a pony for a child. The whole point of going to a dealer is because they supposedly know what they're doing. To use the earlier comparison, you shouldn't have to be an expert in vacuum cleaners to buy a functional vacuum cleaner....


----------



## ycbm (23 March 2017)

popsdosh said:



			There is no such' law' just comes under normal consumer law . If it had been reported within 30 days the dealer by law would have to take the goods back and refund without the need for a reason . This new law will eventually change horse dealing as we know it and most likely turn over to much power to the buyer as they will on any whim be able to return and be refunded After 30 days its gets more complicated as you then need a reason to return the goods for a refund which is where the sticking point may be.
		
Click to expand...

I know some very good low end, high turnover dealers who deal with this problem by leasing any horse for sale for a period first, and then dropping the price by the lease fee if the custumer decides to buy.  The customer can do whatever they like with the horse in that time, and they don't own it, so they can return it even if they break it. 

It seems like a very good model to me. Maybe we will see more of it?

Popsdosh, surely the right of return for any reason only applies if the article is in the same condition in which was sold?  You can't just crock a horse and then send it back, any more than you can cut the sleeve off a jumper and return it.   Can you?

In this case, the owner bought a sound horse and wants to return a lame one, so the thirty day rule would not help.


----------



## indie1282 (23 March 2017)

Before the horse gets PTS has the vet actually x rayed this horse and performed a proper lameness work up? 

Or are they just speculating that he may have arthritis? If you like the horse as much as you say OP wouldn't it be worth giving that a go before making any decisions? Understand if cost is an issue.


----------



## YorksG (23 March 2017)

If this is a four year old horse, how long has it been broken, how small were the small canter circles it showed up lame on? I would not buy a four year old with a "lump" on its knee. If I had made this mistake I would ensure that the horse was not put into a position of being sold on again.


----------



## FestiveFuzz (23 March 2017)

stormox said:



			So, in general, not in this particular case, do people think that dodgy dealers shouldnt be made to take the horse back, and anyone who is mis-sold or buys a lame/unsound/ naughty  horse  should accept they were done,or made a mistake and have the horse PTS for the horses sake and the 'dodgy dealer'keep the money??
		
Click to expand...

I think this is a massive grey area and essentially comes down to whether you truly believe/there's evidence to suggest that the seller knowingly mis-sold the horse. 

Pops was bought from a highly regarded dressage rider/dealer. When she did her DDFT I'd owned her for exactly 33 days. Ultrasound scans showed mineralisation in both forelegs which would suggest prior damage/a pre-existing issue and was certainly very unusual for a 5yo that was as low maintenance as I was led to believe when I bought her. But the insurers were happy to pay for her treatment and there was absolutely no possible way I could prove that her seller deliberately mis-sold her, so I just wrote it off as incredibly bad luck. 

I'd lost about £10k by the time she was PTS 8 months later, but sadly that's just the luck of the draw with horses sometimes. I honestly wouldn't have had it any other way though as I know I always did right by her and did everything I could to make her better and to me that's priceless. 

In the case of the OP I struggle to understand how someone who lost a 7yo could then be so gung ho about their next purchase. I mean honestly who views a horse with a visible lump and then dismisses said lump because the seller said "nope the horse has no lumps or bumps, it's clean limbed"? Surely that's the moment you say "erm...so what about that lump on his knee then?". Adding to that the not vetting, it's just madness!


----------

