Woman found guilty of mis-describing horse for sale

A Caernarfon woman has received a three-year conditional discharge at Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court, for mis-describing a horse that she sold in the course of trade.

The case was brought by Shropshire Council’s trading standards service.

Victoria Long, 23, pleaded guilty to a charge under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The case arose from the sale of a black Gelderlander gelding horse named Winston, to a Mrs Janet Musgrave, formerly of Kings Nordley near Bridgnorth.

Mr Mike Davies, prosecuting for Shropshire Council, told the court that in August 2009, Long advertised Winston for sale on an Internet classified advertisement site which specialised in the sale of horses and ponies. Her advert described him as “the most kind sweet-natured horse you could ever wish to meet… he is 1000% in every way… he never gets fizzy or silly and takes everything in his stride.”

Mrs Musgrave was considering buying a horse for her novice partner to ride, and considered Winston’s advertised description to be ideal for this purpose. She travelled especially to North Wales to view the horse and, finding his behaviour suitably docile, she decided to purchase him.

Mr Davies said that Mrs Musgrave found Winston’s behaviour changed dramatically following delivery to her home address, and he was very difficult to handle from the beginning. On only the fourth attempt to ride him, he badly misbehaved and threw Mrs Musgrave, causing serious injury.

Janet George, a former acting chief executive of the British Horse Society – an expert witness on behalf of the prosecution – had stated that the horse was not as described and was unsuitable for a novice rider.

Paul Nicholas, for Long, told the court that her parents were horse traders, and that the advertisement for Winston had been ‘piggy-backed’ on their own account with the advertising website.

Frances Darling, trading standards manager with Shropshire Council, commented:

Despite the argument put forward by the defence that Long ‘piggy-backed’ on her parents’ advertising account, it is our view that she was in trade in her own right. It is illegal to sell any goods or services and falsely claim or create the impression that the sale is not for the purposes of a trade or business when this is in fact the case or for a seller to falsely represent themselves as a consumer. Consumer protection legislation requires anyone, when selling as part of a business, to make this absolutely clear; it is important to understand that this does not necessarily mean selling large numbers of items or making a significant profit. I am concerned that Long’s case is not an isolated occurrence in the equine world and would urge anyone involved in the sale of horses to seek advice from their local trading standards to ensure they do not breach the law.”

Councillor Cecilia Motley, Shropshire Council’s Cabinet member responsible for trading standards, said:

“This case sends a clear warning to sellers of horses to ensure that they are properly described in any advertisements. Horses can be unpredictable and, as demonstrated by this case, can represent a danger to an unwary purchaser. Sellers of horses and traders have a duty of care to their customers to ensure that the animal’s temperament is accurately described and that the advertisement clearly indicates whether the sale is being made in the course of trade. This was not the case in this unfortunate instance.”