How robust livery contracts help avoid disputes

Business cost increases, alongside the rising cost of living, are challenging many alternative enterprises, especially those involving the paying public.

There has been a substantial increase in disputes between horse owners and livery yard operators over the past year, says lawyer Lara Davies, head of legal at OLS Solicitors.

See also: Farm diversification tips from those with experience

Contract disputes have risen mainly as a result of unclear agreements – either verbal or poorly drafted contracts that lack clarity on basic terms such as notice periods, fee increases, and responsibility for veterinary costs, says Lara, who specialises in equine disputes, including the mis-selling of horses.

Increased feed, bedding, staff and other costs mean livery fees have risen, making them unaffordable for some.

The typical range for livery sector money claims pursued through the courts is £1,000-£3,000, says Lara. Damages claims can be much higher.

“Horse owners often assume goodwill is enough, but when costs rise or circumstances change, relationships can deteriorate rapidly,” she says.

“Without clear written terms, both parties become vulnerable to costly legal battles.”

Changes at short notice

Unexpected price hikes with minimal notice are a common cause of problems for horse owners, while yard owners face financial losses when clients leave without proper notice.

“Unclear fee structures and notice periods for price increases are the primary cause of disagreements, followed by confusion over who pays for damage to property, unclear responsibilities for horse welfare, and ambiguous termination clauses,” says Lara.

She recommends comprehensive written agreements are put in place, regardless of existing relationships.

“A good contract protects everyone involved. It should clearly outline services provided, costs, notice periods for changes, termination procedures, and liability terms.”

Pricing policies, notice and vets

Lara suggests being transparent about pricing policies and that a calendar month is a suitable notice period for price rises.

Disputes over vet bills are not uncommon, so contracts should include a preferred vet contact, where responsibility lies for payment and for approving veterinary treatment, including in the owner’s absence or in the event that they are not contactable at the time a decision has to be made.

Where contracts are in place, they need regular review – many disputes arise from contracts that haven’t been updated for years and no longer reflect current costs or services, says Lara.

Verbal assurances on either side should not be relied upon, she adds.