Paying for a share horse that cant be ridden

[Pony1]

I currently share a horse. Due to an injury, he’s been on box rest for the past month although I’ve stil been going up as per usual and looking after him. Im paying £30 a week plus half shoes as per usual even though im unable to ride. Im dying to get back in the saddle - Ive booked a lesson at a riding school to help relief me a bit and i actually cant wait! ( its next week ) :D– its so frustrating not being able to ride my share, but I understand these things cant be helped and its nobodies fault. Do you think I should still be paying the full amount for no riding? He’s having scans done but it could be ages and ages before he can be ridden – who knows! His owner only wanted a sharer for the money so I know she wont say anything about paying a bit less while he cant be ridden – she needs the money! Theres another girl at the yard who shares a horse and doesn’t pay anything :rolleyes:( lucky so and so) and theres me paying money just to muck out. Haha. Although I have to say, i do like mucking out! Anybody else been in a similar situation.?

[pedilia]

I have had several sharers, I have always said that I wouldn't expect payment if the horse can't be used.

Do you have a share agreement?

[Soot]

People all have different arrangements --

personally I used to share to ride. I had my own horse to look after (couldn't afford to own two and mine was retired) ... Would not have been interested in a horse I couldn't ride and would have made that clear when the share started!

On the other hand when my full loan horse got injured I made the decision to keep her on, although could easily have sent her back. I was happy to pay.rehab her/etc ...

So it depends on the situation!

Most owners I know wouldn't expect someone to pay for not riding!

[Dooley]

If there is no share agreement, I think sharers should continue to pay in the event of short term lameness issues. If the situation continues (beyond about 1 month , especially once the vet has investigated and found cause of lameness and potential length of time horse will be out of work) I don't believe an owner should expect a sharer to pay.
I would offer to continue to muck out and "fuss" but for free until the horse comes back into work. If it's money they want and only that (and I was still keen to carry on with the share), I'd probably say I was going to stop mucking out... It's one thing saying you share the good and the bad, it's another when you end up paying to do chores.

[Sofi P]

hmmm, tricky one. Owning a horse is far more than just riding as I'm sure you're aware however it does seem a little steep for you to pay £30 a week to do jobs that essentially an owner would have to pay someone else to do if they were unable to.

Could you approach the owner and maybe discuss reducing your payments whilst the horse in on box rest? What about if you paid £10-15/ week allowing you the remainder for a weekly riding lesson? You could still offer to help out and resume full payment when the horse is ridable again.

I'm not sure I would be willing to continue paying if the horse could be out of work for a long time, if it was just a few weeks then fine, but you say you dont know when he'll be sound again which is a different matter

[horse__obsessed]

short term i have always continued paying but when he was off work indefinitely i stopped paying by mutual agreement with the owner as it was uncertain whether the share would be able to continue :)

[cinammontoast]

Echo Sofi P-utterly sensible! There's one at my yard-ongoing back problems and box rest for weeks and weeks. The sharer only wants to ride so isn't keen on paying the (mostly absent) owner to muck out and nearly get killed walking the horse!

[KateWooten]

It's a tough one ... you just have to weigh up the chances of him being rideable again, and whether you want to risk losing the share. It just depends if it's worth it to you. It's not the same as owning, where you have no choice but to pay up and pay to treat the horse. Be aware, that if you ask to pay less, when at the moment, the owner is having to pay out a lot in vet bills etc, then she's likely to no take you back !

We had a girl here locally who leased my friend's horse - but my friend was basically doing her the favour, because without the lease, he wouldn't have been at the expensive boarding barn, he'd have been turned out on her own land back home. Anyway, the horse lost a lot of weight, my friend ran expensive tests and treatment of over $2000 - and immediately the girls parents wanted to stop paying for his shoes (it was a free lease) since he couldn't be ridden ... even though, if he'd stayed home, he'd never have lost all the weight in the first place ! Turned out the horse had just gotten to the bottom of the pecking order at the boarding barn and wasn't getting anything to eat.

[Pony1]

I have had several sharers, I have always said that I wouldn't expect payment if the horse can't be used.

Do you have a share agreement?

Can I share your horse:p ?

I dont have a share agreement no - silly really.

Thank you for all your replys! I think a reduced rate £10-15 a week would be a good idea but id feel sooooo cheeky asking! Obviously if its your own horse its different, but I am paying to ride, not just to muck out. He's not even a nice horse to be around ( constantly bites ) and he's difficult to handle. Think il see what comes of these scans.. He's an old horse so who knows what the future holds....

[Melting Moments]

Tricky one!..maybe not pay as much.

[Loz loves Wills]

I dont think you should be paying, I would say something, Because if your not riding then your just doing their jobs for them like a groom. They should be paying you :P

My share Horse just had 2 weeks of as her bottom teeth went through her top lip and it had to be stitched up. Owners told me not to pay them for 2 weeks.

[devonlass]

The difference to me between a share and a loan,is that with a loan you take on all the responsibility for better or worse,but with a share you get to enjoy the horse more on your own terms and at your convenience,and don't have ultimate responsibility.
For *most* people a share is about the riding,although obviously many people like to help out with the chores as well,and some do it instead of paying,poor you OP sound like you are doing all the chores,and paying quite a lot of money,and not even getting to ride!! Sounds like a pretty cr@ppy share to me if I'm honest.

If I had a sharer I would certainly not expect them to pay if they couldn't enjoy the horse as they wanted,I might offer them to still come up and help out if they wanted,but again I wouldn't expect them to.

I certainly don't think you should still be paying towards shoes whilst the horse is on box rest,surely she should have at least suggested letting you off that!!

[liz--y]

£30 a week makes £60 a week for diy livery. are you sure you are only paying 1/2

[Vicki&Milo]

One of my ponies is off work at the mo, and I'm still expecting my sharer to pay. She can still ride the other, but obviously there is a bit less riding as there is only one pony and sometimes I want to ride (I know I'm really unreasonable! :p). Although, to be honest, if she asked I'd probably reduce it.

That said, there is stuff to be done with my mare. She just can't be ridden, she still needs walking out and can be lunged.

That said, she only pays £20 a week for the two, £30 +shoes is an awful lot if you're doing yard chores too IMO. Also, she initially was thinking about just having my mare, but on full loan. That would be costing her much more, and she wouldn't be riding at all.
I think maybe its a case of thinking about what this really means to you. Is it a 'share' in which case you pay to share in that horse, and sometimes that means they are out of work, or are you paying for rides?

[loopy1]

i agree ^^^^

there are LOADS of people out there looking for sharers so dont stay if you arent happy with what youre getting for your (quite a lot of ) money

[TEmily]

I ended up giving up my share horse because he became permenantly unsound. I hung on till it was clear he was never going to be what I wanted.

I think if you could wait for the vets diagnosis then if its going to be long term you are within your right to reduce your rate so you can at least pay for a riding lesson. At the end of the day, she's not going to find someone else to pay anything towards a lame horse is she!

[Yann]

I would expect a sharer to continue paying in the short term, but would stop asking for anything if it turned out to be a long term issue.

[diamonddogs]

Different circumstances, but I was going to share a horse last year, but she went lame the day before I was due to start the share.

The owner refused to take anything from me until I could ride, but the lameness carried on for ages and I wanted a horse!!! I looked for another share/loan for months before I found Kels.

Then sod's law, a few days before Kels was to be delivered they phoned me and offered me the horse on full loan to be kept at a yard of my choice. :rolleyes:

[alwaysfallingof]

When I was a sharer I was paying £30 a week for 2 days riding and was expected to carry on paying even if the horse couldn't be ridden. I felt this was incredibly unfair (basically paying to do someone else's mucking out) and so now I have sharers myself, one of the first things I said was that if he is off work I don't expect any money.
It also means that I can pull Max off work for a week here and there if necessary (which isn't *that* unusual since he picks up every chest infection going) without having to feel at all guilty.

[Pony1]

liz-y : I dont think livery ( even DIY) is all too cheap where I live so £30 seems fair( if u can ride that is) Im sure owner pays a lot more than £60 a week, probally more like £80+ ( quite a lot for a horse on DIY huh?:rolleyes:)

alwaysfallingof - sounds like u used to have a worse deal than me! £30 for 2 days riding seems steap! but u sound like a nice owner saying you wouldnt expect your sharer to pay - Do let me know if your sharer leaves :D

loopy1 - Your right, there are loads of people looking for sharers. When I was looking I put out an advert and had tonnes of replys - I was flooded with them! so if it turns into a long term thing, think il have to think again...

Thanks again for your replys everyone - really good reading them all actually. I was slightly worried that everybody would say ' well you took him on, u should pay regardless'.. but thankfully nobodies said that - phew!:o

Think il wait for the vet report and see ( thats if the scans ever get done).. Owner said she feels bad about me not being able to ride ( yeh yeh - lol) obviously hasnt said anything about the money side...

[nat17]

I would expect a sharer to continue paying in the short term, but would stop asking for anything if it turned out to be a long term issue.


I agree:eek::D

[Coco91]

yes I did when my sharer was lame for a while, i think people should as it's just part of horse owner/share ship :)

[wibble]

:)In my share agreements I put that the sharer has to pay for a month if the horse is still lame then they can stop paying until the horse is sound.

I am always shocked at how much some people pay to share

[loopy1]

:)
I am always shocked at how much some people pay to share

so am i!
maybe i should get a sharer!

[S_F_S]

Ditto above, paying for sharing is a very new concept! When I was younger people would swap mucking out, poo picking, and dirty messy jobs for rides. Useful if one half of the share worked difficult hours and wanted someone else reliable to be able to do horse. No exchange of money involved.

[alwaysfallingof]

alwaysfallingof - sounds like u used to have a worse deal than me! £30 for 2 days riding seems steap!

It was a lot, but it was also about 6 years ago when there were floods of people wanting share horses and only a handful of owners wanting sharers - just about the complete opposite to now! Owners could pretty much just name their price.


Apparently my message is too short to post. Waffle waffle waffle :confused:

[Miriam]

IMO a lot depends I guess on how you see the horse. I've had part shares in the past and if the horse could not be rode would have still very happily paid for the privalege of just going up. After all the overheads dont go away just cause the horse is sick. If its a long term thing then maybe a reduction in the fee could be arranged but if as you say the owner needs the cash then how is she going to pay to get the horse better for you to ride again (dont shoot me down this is just as I see it and would for a horse I had on share). If it turns out the horse cant be rode ever again then yeah maybe have a think about what you want to do

[kayjayhorses]

Trouble is you dont share a horse just to ride it otherwise surely you'd just pay for lessons at a riding school, you pay to have a horse for a set number of days to treat as your own (within reason and with the owners agreement), groom, muck out, take care of and ride - its like saying I can't ride it so I don't want it anymore - but I guess i'm seeing it from a horse owners point of view, it still needs to be looked after, fed and nursed back to health. Maybe a reduced rate should be considered for the non-riding part and tbh I'm surprised the owner hasn't discussed it with you.

[Joyscarer]

I've always been very relaxed about my horse and why I got pl52 in as a sharer.

Tbh I think you get a feel for the sort of person and horse you are dealing with when you taken on a share.

For me I have never been overly concerned about riding and more satisfied about all the care and other stuff. I've also never been that bothered about the number or frequency of days.

However if I were a serious rider and into competition then the riding element of a share would be vital. If this were a long term problem then I would be having a chat to the owner about the prognosis and how this affects the share agreement.

[cinammontoast]

I've always been very relaxed about my horse and why I got pl52 in as a sharer.

Am jealous: want that young lady to come to London.
http://www.cosgan.de/images/more/bigs/c045.gif

I was quite chill about who rode Beau until I realised he was so terribly green and there was no point in having anyone who wasn't a good rider on him. However, I never asked for money and I like to think I helped a horse addict who just happened not to have a horse! I'm luckily not in a position where I need money or help really but if box rest came up, I wouldn't expect a sharer to carry on were it long term.

[Pale Moon]

I dont think you should be paying, I would say something, Because if your not riding then your just doing their jobs for them like a groom. They should be paying you :P

My share Horse just had 2 weeks of as her bottom teeth went through her top lip and it had to be stitched up. Owners told me not to pay them for 2 weeks.

What do you think an owner does when her horse can't be ridden because it is on box rest or lame? Not pay its bills?? What would happen then??

Sharing a horse shouldn't be all about riding - there is much much more to it than that. I share my horse and he has been lame for the last 7 weeks as his arthritis has flared up - BOTH my sharers have continued to pay me and I have not offered not to accept the money. I still have huge full livery bills to pay - I can't ride him either!!

Neither of my sharers mind that he can't be ridden or even the fact that none of us know how long he is going to be like this. It is all part and parcel of being involved in a horse's life, taking the rough with the smooth and not walking away just because he is having problems and can't be ridden.:mad:

[alwaysfallingof]

What do you think an owner does when her horse can't be ridden because it is on box rest or lame? Not pay its bills?? What would happen then??

Sharing a horse shouldn't be all about riding - there is much much more to it than that. I share my horse and he has been lame for the last 7 weeks as his arthritis has flared up - BOTH my sharers have continued to pay me and I have not offered not to accept the money. I still have huge full livery bills to pay - I can't ride him either!!

Neither of my sharers mind that he can't be ridden or even the fact that none of us know how long he is going to be like this. It is all part and parcel of being involved in a horse's life, taking the rough with the smooth and not walking away just because he is having problems and can't be ridden.:mad:

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. Taking the rough with the smooth and not walking away is a vital attitude for the *owner* to have, but not necessarily the sharer.

I own a horse with slight arthritis and a tendency to pick up chest infections. I have just found a sharer that will be riding him 3 times a week. Since it is fairly likely that he will have occasional weeks off work, I made sure that I clarified that the sharer would not be expected to pay for those weeks.
People have different reasons for sharing - there are people who just want to look after a pony but there are also people that primarily want an opportunity to practice riding in an environment that is different to a RS. They can also make fantastic sharers, it's just that riding is their priority. Fair enough, the owner still has bills to pay if the horse is sick but - it's THEIR horse!! I think that asking someone to pay for the privilege of mucking out for you is out of order. I couldn't bring myself to do it.

I don't expect my sharers to vanish if he's sick - they will still see him 3 times a week, groom him, care for him and do the chores. I just don't want to charge them for it because, at the end of the day, they are helping me care for my sick horse!

[daftdraught]

I tried to get somebody to ride my horse for free while I was on maternity quite a few people seemed interested until they saw the size of her then I didn't see them for dust.Before I had my own horses I would have jumped at the offer. People are always looking for weight carriers but even the local riding school never got back to me. She is very sweet easy to handle bare foot low maintenance and ok for a novice to hack in company. So now when somebody wants to ride her it falls on deaf ears.

[rubysmum]

my sharer contract states specifically that i expect the sharer to pay for 1 months non-rideaable share & that if the horse continues to be unfit after that time that i would not expect any financial contribution - at the end of the day its not their horse
xx

[clare123]

What do you think an owner does when her horse can't be ridden because it is on box rest or lame? Not pay its bills?? What would happen then??

Sharing a horse shouldn't be all about riding - there is much much more to it than that. I share my horse and he has been lame for the last 7 weeks as his arthritis has flared up - BOTH my sharers have continued to pay me and I have not offered not to accept the money. I still have huge full livery bills to pay - I can't ride him either!!

Neither of my sharers mind that he can't be ridden or even the fact that none of us know how long he is going to be like this. It is all part and parcel of being involved in a horse's life, taking the rough with the smooth and not walking away just because he is having problems and can't be ridden.:mad:

I am a sharer and have this clause in my agreement with the owner:

The SHARER will continue to pay the OWNER the agreed monthly sum for the SHARE of the HORSE, in the event that the horse is temporarily unable to be ridden, in such occasions as a minor illness or injury, up to a period of one month. If the HORSE is still not fit to be ridden after one month, then the SHARER is no longer liable for payment of the agreed sum, until such time that the horse is fit and well and able to be ridden.

PaleMoon - I took this from the share agreement that you sent to me that you use :confused:

[Miriam]

[QUOTE=alwaysfallingof;2462936]I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. Taking the rough with the smooth and not walking away is a vital attitude for the *owner* to have, but not necessarily the sharer.

QUOTE]


On a more serious note and not to do really with this topic but this does tend to make me boil in some ways. Yes the sharer can walk away but can I ask what happens if the horses legs have been run ragged by the sharer and they walk away leaving the owner with the bill and a loss of use horse or a horse that is off for months? Should the sharer then take the rough with the smooth if the horse is off for months?

[Pale Moon]

Fair enough, the owner still has bills to pay if the horse is sick but - it's THEIR horse!! I think that asking someone to pay for the privilege of mucking out for you is out of order. I couldn't bring myself to do it.



Yes, it is my horse. But I have always let my sharers treat him as if he were their own on their days. Therefore, I still expect to be paid if he cannot be ridden.

And by the way........ my horse is a full livery, so there is no mucking out to do........ so hardly out of order!:rolleyes:

[Pale Moon]

I am a sharer and have this clause in my agreement with the owner:

The SHARER will continue to pay the OWNER the agreed monthly sum for the SHARE of the HORSE, in the event that the horse is temporarily unable to be ridden, in such occasions as a minor illness or injury, up to a period of one month. If the HORSE is still not fit to be ridden after one month, then the SHARER is no longer liable for payment of the agreed sum, until such time that the horse is fit and well and able to be ridden.

PaleMoon - I took this from the share agreement that you sent to me that you use :confused:

Yes, that is what it says in my share agreement but neither of my sharers have approached me to say that they don't think that they should be paying for him anymore - in fact, both of them have said that as far as they are concerned nothing has changed and they are happy just to carry on as we are. They are both in the share for the long haul - rough with the smooth as I have said previously - both of them realise that if they had their own horses they would still have bills to pay even if they couldn't ride, so as far as I am concerned, if they are happy then fair enough. At the end of the day, my livery bills are pretty huge as he is on full, so I am not going to refuse money if my sharers are happy to continue to pay me! Both of them go down regularly and spend time with him, walk him out in hand, brush him, fuss him etc.

Obviously if one or both of my sharers came to me and said that they were not paying me anymore until my lad was sound, as per my share agreement, then I would honour that happily.

[clare123]

Obviously if one or both of my sharers came to me and said that they were not paying me anymore until my lad was sound, as per my share agreement, then I would honour that happily.

Fair enough I suppose. From my point of view as a sharer, if we were talking 2-3 months then, yes, I would inost probably carry on the share/paying for it, but if it was going to be box rest for much longer than that or indefinate I would be thinking again about carrying it on. The horse I share is also on full livery and I pay a reasonable contribution to share him.

[alwaysfallingof]

And by the way........ my horse is a full livery, so there is no mucking out to do........ so hardly out of order!:rolleyes:

Sorry I was talking generally, not specifically about your arrangement. Full livery I guess is different, and you're lucky you have such understanding sharers. Unfortunately I think that they're not that common.

Miriam, I agree that that is atrocious behaviour. However, if the sharer has 'broken' the horse, either through overwork or ignorance then I think my opinion remains unchanged. It's a risk you take when you share your horse that it might become injured in the hands of the other person. I think that if it happened through ignorance the sharer is likely to feel so guilty they'd keep on paying anyway. If it were through ill-treatment then I wouldn't want the perpetrators near my horse ever again, paying or not!!

[Miriam]

Miriam, I agree that that is atrocious behaviour. However, if the sharer has 'broken' the horse, either through overwork or ignorance then I think my opinion remains unchanged. It's a risk you take when you share your horse that it might become injured in the hands of the other person. I think that if it happened through ignorance the sharer is likely to feel so guilty they'd keep on paying anyway. If it were through ill-treatment then I wouldn't want the perpetrators near my horse ever again, paying or not!!

Think what makes it harder to dismiss is the heart is in the right place just not the head. Have got to stage that I dont care if they dont like riding around me they can take that pick, however if she dont exercise the horse no point in her being on her (and that dont mean she can only exercise when I am not there). I agree it is a risk we take sharing out horses hence I can get very particular when looking for sharers especially for the bigger one. Same girl has offered to ride the bigger horse if I need it exercised and I flately refuse to let her ride him without me being there and she refuses to ride him if I am there:S