Couple sue 20 year old photographer

[boyfalldown]

Hugh - think about what you have written and see if it makes sense. Ask yourself some simple questions. We were not talking about a "him" we were talking about large insurance companies. Who do you think they send to defend cases? Do you not see the distinction between a private individual and a large corporation? Have you ever spend any time around a county court? Most junior council will spend the first couple of years after their pupillage in the county court.

Your last paragraph asks a question which is literally impossible to answer. It depends on so many variables that I won't go into it. There will be an average figure for an insurance company to defend a claim. However I am too tired, and not interested enough to look for it.

In answer to your question about a county court yes. Have you ( that's not meant in a funny way).

You've made no end of assumptions about this case you can't possibly know - my question about the value of the case been intended to show that. How do you know insurers are even involved for example? I'm going to bet a student charging £100 for a one off job wasn't insured. The insurance company is your assumption. This will go no further then small claims for £100.

 

[supersammy]

In answer to your question about a county court yes. Have you ( that's not meant in a funny way).

You've made no end of assumptions about this case you can't possibly know - my question about the value of the case been intended to show that. How do you know insurers are even involved for example?

My experience is limited to a few weeks. Luckily for me. I have never claimed to be an expert. I only stated that it is common practise that council are instructed. I stand by this. It is my experience that this is the case.

The only things I have taken into consideration here are: 1)the photos, some people claim to have seen them and say they are dreadful. 2) The formation of a contract, given money has been exchanged for services this is a fact.

I have NEVER said any insurance company is involved. Indeed it is my belief that they are not! I merely pointed out that in my experience if they were, they would settle the matter before it got to court.

 

[boyfalldown]

My experience is limited to a few weeks. Luckily for me. I have never claimed to be an expert. I only stated that it is common practise that council are instructed. I stand by this. It is my experience that this is the case.

The only things I have taken into consideration here are: 1)the photos, some people claim to have seen them and say they are dreadful.

Any representation in the small claims track is very unusual. It's actively discouraged, not least due to the very small amount of costs can be reclaimed. That's not true for the other tracks.

The photos are dire. I've seen them. But she was also completely open about her lack of experience before hand. Regardless of that I think any legal case has been blown away by a Facebook witch hunt.

 

[supersammy]

Any representation in the small claims track is very unusual. It's actively discouraged, not least due to the very small amount of costs can be reclaimed. That's not true for the other tracks.

The photos are dire. I've seen them. But she was also completely open about her lack of experience before hand. Regardless of that I think any legal case has been blown away by a Facebook witch hunt.

You are completely correct when it comes to private individuals.

I have no problem with this girl and hope it all works out for her. It probable isn't a particularly nice time for her, and me gobbing off about pacta sunt servanda isn't helping anyone. So I shall shut up about it now.

 

[Phil V]

Most of the posters on here are completely missing the point. Just because someone asks for less money than their competition does not mean that the customer should just accept a product this bloody awful!

If I go to asda and fill my car with petrol because it is cheaper than Shell, does not mean that it's my fault if the dodgy fuel causes my engine to blow up! And I would definitely go to the papers about it, I would definitely start a campaign! And I would certainly sue the garage!

The "girl" is an adult. She chose to take on this paid work and did a terrible job. The fact that this has been highlighted in a newspaper and also on facebook is a good thing, as it will hopefully mean that no one else is a victim of hers.

With regards to what compensation they may get, you can listen to the experts on here who do not list their qualifications. I have a degree in Law from Cambridge University (I do not practise), and would not like to say. She has a good chance of being found in breach of contract and being ordered to compensate them for any amount which they can prove is as a result of her negligence.

2 points of bull here:
People accept products that are 'bloody awful' but cheap on a regular basis. McDonalds sell millions of burgers a week - they're cheap and disgusting. The point being quality is subjective.

Forget the petrol, that's a <5% price difference, the industry average for wedding photography is >10x what this B&G paid, so it's like you buying petrol at <14p a litre would you really think you were buying a legal and acceptable product?

You can deem that she's in breach of contract without having seen the contract? If you really think she's in breach of contract, your law degree must be from Hogwarts. Take a breath, the only relevant part of that sentence is chance there's also a chance that she wouldn't be found to be in breach of contract (we honestly don't know do we:shake.

If I delivered those pictures, I wouldn't be in breach of my contract. I can't specify the 'quality' of the shots and we don't promise to deliver everything requested as it leaves us open to non co-operation. I'll bet every other photographer on here with a contract will have similar terms.

That doesn't mean that a couple couldn't sue under the sale of goods act, but nor does it guarantee that they would win - quality is subjective (still).

I can't sue McDonalds because their Burgers aren't as good as a Michelin starred meal, or even as good as something I'd make myself. The judge would think I was stupid to expect it:nuts:.

This all hinges on the agreement between the B&G and the photographer and as we haven't seen a contract and weren't party to the discussion, no amount of barrack room willy waving will get us close to the truth.

 

[Phil V]

My experience is limited to a few weeks. Luckily for me. I have never claimed to be an expert. I only stated that it is common practise that council are instructed. I stand by this. It is my experience that this is the case...
.

That should be all we need to know then. Most of the people you're arguing with have contracts and know how they're worded - you haven't seen the contract in the case.

You're assuming that there's an insurer involved - highly doubtful (an assumption I'm happy to stand by)

You've assumed that the quality of the photo's would be in breach of contract, as a few of us have said, that's highly doubtful too (another assumption based on me reading loads of boilerplate photography contracts online)

So your whole argument is based on 2 massive assumptions that are almost certainly wrong.

But you have a degree in law so you must be right

My brother in law also has a degree in law - the idiot's spent all his working life hanging around courts and criminals. But he wouldn't speculate on this, because he's not really an expert in contract law and he'd never make a guess without seeing any evidence That's what his legal training taught him.

And having a law degree I'd expect you to know it's counsel not council:shake:

 

[tiler65]

She could be in breach of contract if she says she would get the 1st kiss shot etc and didn't ....as for the quality breach ...I think that has to be assessed by expert witnesses to show if it is acceptable and I am sure it has been the case in previous court rulings.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Totally pathetic would be the best way to describe the journalism, picture taking and behaviour of the unhappy couple.

 

[Steve Smith]

As I understand it in the UK anybody can call themself an accountant or engineer with no formal qualifications, it's only the word chartered that makes it an offence. (I might be wrong)

I work as an engineer (both electronic and mechanical) and I do not have a degree.

I have worked with a couple of degree 'educated' engineers who knew next to nothing on the subject.

One of them had a degree in Electronic System Engineering. I think that meant that he had learned how to draw block diagrams as he couldn't do anything else. He once asked me which way round to connect an LED - something I knew when I was five.


Steve.

 

[Phil V]

She could be in breach of contract if she says she would get the 1st kiss shot etc and didn't ....as for the quality breach ...I think that has to be assessed by expert witnesses to show if it is acceptable and I am sure it has been the case in previous court rulings.

I'm prepared to bet that not a single wedding photographer who's a member here will have a promise to get that shot (or any other).

If a couple insist on that in the contract and then refuse to kiss, where does that leave me?

Seeing as that's a bit too specific, if the couple get drunk, refuse to co-operate, or a relative refuses to co-operate, and we have promised any specific shots, we're screwed. It's very common for our contracts to actually mention the opposite - that we're not responsible for the omission of any shots.

I don't know about the missing group shots, but I do know that Warwickshire registrars have the reputation of being the worst in the country for their photography rules - so the ceremony shots are probably not the photographers fault.

As for the quality, forget a written contract, the photographer warned the couple she'd never shot a wedding and charged them well below the industry rate, that'd be taken on board to mitigate the quality issues in court.

If a friend of a friend was thinking of opening a restaurant, and wanted to practice, and offered dining at £5 a head, could he be sued if the food was 'crap'? Or would we have agreed to pay to take part in his 'experiment'? Personally I'd learn from the mistake and move on.

What do people think 'portfolio building' means?

She shouldn't have charged - but this couple knew they were taking a risk, and signed up because it saved them money, there isn't a story as far as I'm concerned, they all made mistakes. The couple have crap pictures and the photographer has a ruined reputation, they all have valuable life lessons.

 

[ernesto]

I think a good analogy to help those who feel the couple aren't at fault is this.

You want a portrait of yourself and like the portraits done by a few artists that will charge £2000. You find an artist who is in art school and offers to paint your portrait for you, they tell you they have never done one before and when you see their previous work you don't think they are very good. You go ahead anyway and pay them £100. You get the portrait and think it is horrible, who is to blame?

 

[tiler65]

Phil ...you are assuming that the photographer in this case has a watertight contract like many seasoned pro's ....I would hazard a guess that she will not even of had her own written one but just a verbal agreement with the B&G on their terms.

 

[jon ryan]

The whole thing sounds like something built up by the Sun so they can 'save the day' by getting one of their staffers to re-do the shoot and get a big 'awww!' from Sun readers*. And, quite incidentally, a second spread. Perhaps they could throw in a few lessons on how to hold a camera for the original shootist, and perhaps even a makeover for the gorgeous bride. Not that I'm for a moment suggesting this is needed.

I wonder where and what the photographer studied?













*For a given value of 'read'

 

[Phil V]

Phil ...you are assuming that the photographer in this case has a watertight contract like many seasoned pro's ....I would hazard a guess that she will not even of had her own written one but just a verbal agreement with the B&G on their terms.

I'm fairly certain that there'll have been no contract, but I also doubt that the agreement was 'on the customers terms' seeing that the photographer hadn't shot a wedding and was charging well below the market rate, they'll be in no position to suggest they were promised any specific quality or quantity.

 

[danny842003]

Seriously who believes there was a contract promising anything?

She probably got told in passing get some photos of my family etc they have come a long way etc etc.

A student doing this for £100 I doubt there was a contract.

Also to whoever said before about an MOT costing £20 and dropping a car off a ramp. Totally different scenario. Firstly all MOTs are provided on behalf of the Ministry so instantly your in a whole world of red tape and insurance. An MOT can be given for free or up to the maximum price of £50 or whatever its set by the ministry at the moment. But you should get exactly the same service as specified by the ministry.

A better likeness would be you get your car serviced for £50 rather than paying Audi £250. Do you expect the same service? I doubt it. For starters the oil used by Audi would cost more than £50.

 

[gadgeteer]

I remember reading that the photographer had agreed to do group shots. There were some (awful) group shots which were apparently organised by a family member, not the tog. I don't think she completed them all. So this i think is where she will fall down. In fact it was clear to me that she didn't organise anything or assert herself as the official tog. My first lesson learned was that if needed you have to push people out of the way (nicely). A lot of her angles were what is expect from a guest on the sidelines.

The rest of the quality issue is subjective. That said, I've seen the full set and quite honestly i think the sun printed some of the better ones. Allegedly she edited some but i couldn't see the edit even side by side.

i get what Sammy says about negligience but given she delivered over 500 photos for £100 and what she told them, that should be some mitigation hopefully.

The couple do not seem to be taking any responsibility and that annoys me. I hate it when people blame others and don't take responsibility for themselves.

 

[BruceMo]

Im astonished anyone could study photography at college and still make these blunders, but more surprised she actually seems to believe she has the skills to take on a wedding, but even more surprised than that again, that the b+g would entrust her to capture their big day and believe that service to be worth £100

 

[Pookeyhead]

Im astonished anyone could study photography at college and still make these blunders,

I'm not, and I teach it at college. There's always a small contingent of students who just arse about, don't practice, and do the absolute minimum to bump along the bottom getting Cs and Ds. Learning is a reciprocal endeavour that requires dedication from the student.

We also don't know what level she was studying at. It could have been A level.. and that's essentially useless when it comes to delivering the kinds of skills a job like this requires.

"Studied Photography at college" is no guarantee of anything and quite a useless statement.

 

[cowboy]

Out of curiosity how many photographs would a couple get if they paid a seasoned professional wedding photographer £100?

I know a wedding photographer wouldn't shoot a wedding for £100 so I was just wondering pro rata, just ordinary A4 (or similar) print(s).

 

[BruceMo]

I'm not, and I teach it at college. There's always a small contingent of students who just arse about, don't practice, and do the absolute minimum to bump along the bottom getting Cs and Ds. Learning is a reciprocal endeavour that requires dedication from the student.

We also don't know what level she was studying at. It could have been A level.. and that's essentially useless when it comes to delivering the kinds of skills a job like this requires.

"Studied Photography at college" is no guarantee of anything and quite a useless statement.

i used to teach construction, so agree with what you say, but, I think getting the heads in shot would be pretty basic expectation
It maybe sounds like Im blaming the girl here, Im not by the way. The b+g have to take responsibility for their choice

 

[gadgeteer]

Im astonished anyone could study photography at college and still make these blunders

I have some friends who have studied photography at college. The course was entitled "Digital Photography for Beginners". But it was at college! They're now ready to shoot weddings!

Out of curiosity how many photographs would a couple get if they paid a seasoned professional wedding photographer £100?

Most experienced photographers who could do a decent job wouldn't even turn up and politely turn the couple down. I know I have done it and I'm operating purposely at the budget end.

I do know of one local 'photographer' who charges £20 per hour (no minimum!) and whose quality is similar to the photographer in question. Frustratingly she's advertising heavily over local FB groups and honestly her standard is shocking. I've seen some brides whom have enquired with me turn me down and book with her. I feel sorry for them.

Ironically she enquired if I would shoot her wedding but I turned her down because her budget was £100! Apparently she felt that was plenty and I was overcharging because my prices were much higher than that. I disagreed. But then I can get my photos in focus and exposed properly!

 

[gadgeteer]

I think getting the heads in shot would be pretty basic expectation

LOL not always. As said upthread I managed to photograph the pavement recently. The difference is that I know my job well enough to delete the photo permanently and not hand it over to the B&G.

 

[Phil V]

Out of curiosity how many photographs would a couple get if they paid a seasoned professional wedding photographer £100?

I know a wedding photographer wouldn't shoot a wedding for £100 so I was just wondering pro rata, just ordinary A4 (or similar) print(s).

I won't give the exact details, but I recently spent 20 mins with a B&G following their wedding to take some portraits (2 were requested) to mark the occasion. The pricing is similar, I wouldn't ordinarily take on a job that small, but it fit round my arrangements for the day.

So I suppose that's one way of seeing it. Another is that experienced wedding togs will typically charge anything from £500 to £1500 just for that length of coverage, so 10 hrs / £1000 = £100 per hour (nothing delivered except proofs) could be 2 hrs or half an hour dependant on the 500-1500 range.

 

[ZoneV]

Most of the posters on here are completely missing the point. Just because someone asks for less money than their competition does not mean that the customer should just accept a product this bloody awful!

If I go to asda and fill my car with petrol because it is cheaper than Shell, does not mean that it's my fault if the dodgy fuel causes my engine to blow up!

+1

That's how I see it too.

The photographer shouldn't have taken the (paid) job on. She did and therefore she is responsible, regardless how cheap her rate.

 

[Carousels Spin]

I'd imagine that the photographer thought excluding their heads would produce the better photos...?

 

[PMN]

+1

That's how I see it too.

The photographer shouldn't have taken the (paid) job on. She did and therefore she is responsible, regardless how cheap her rate.

So you essentially expect someone charging £100 to give similarly acceptable results to someone charging £1500? That's like saying you'd pay 20 quid for a Ryanair flight and expect Etihad business class comfort with free luggage allowance because you still paid for your ticket. It simply doesn't work like that.

There's a great old saying - pay peanuts and get monkeys. There's a very good reason that saying exists.

 

[ZoneV]

I'd imagine that the photographer thought excluding their heads would produce the better photos...?

The photographer should have excluded herself from the venue. That would have produced better photos!

 

[ZoneV]

So you essentially expect someone charging £100 to give similarly acceptable results to someone charging £1500? That's like saying you'd pay 20 quid for a Ryanair flight and expect Etihad business class comfort with free luggage allowance because you still paid for your ticket. It simply doesn't work like that.

There's a great old saying - pay peanuts and get monkeys. There's a very good reason that saying exists.

No, that's not what I said.

Let's put it this way - what would a £100 photographer have to do wrong in your eyes to justify a claim against them? From what you're saying, they could get away with anything, which can't be right, can it?

 

[PMN]

Let's put it this way - what would a £100 photographer have to do wrong in your eyes to justify a claim against them?

That's a totally invalid question because I wouldn't hire a wedding photographer charging 100 quid in the first place. That's really where this entire situation ends as far as I'm concerned.

As I said earlier, I hope the photographer learned a very valuable lesson but the bride and groom can's sue the photographer for their own stupidity. I realise that sounds harsh but I genuinely think it really is that simple!

 

[ZoneV]

That's a totally invalid question because I wouldn't hire a wedding photographer charging 100 quid in the first place because I'm not that stupid. That's really where this entire situation ends as far as I'm concerned.

As I said earlier, I hope the photographer learned a very valuable lesson but the bride and groom can's sue the photographer for their own stupidity.

It's a perfectly valid question.

If they can get away with anything then heck, I'll set up a "£100 wedding photography" business today and employ my blind cousin as the photographer.

 

[PMN]

No it isn't because for me the situation would never arise, therefore it makes zero sense for me to theorise about what may happen in a non-existant situation. Me doing so wouldn't help this discussion either.

 

[PMN]

You didn't answer my question either. Do you expect a £100 photographer to give similar results to a £1500 photographer?

 

[ZoneV]

No it isn't because for me the situation would never arise, therefore it makes zero sense for me to theorise about what may happen in a non-existant situation. Me doing so wouldn't help this discussion either.

The situation has already arisen - it's the subject of this thread!

What would the £100 photographer have to do wrong to justify a claim against them?

 

[PMN]

What would the £100 photographer have to do wrong to justify a claim against them?

If you insist on ignoring my question and continuing with your own then in my eyes the only thing they could do to justify a claim would be to injure someone. That's it. In my eyes there's nothing, apart from perhaps sitting in a corner getting blitzed on red wine and leaving the camera turned off, that could justify a claim. Nothing whatsoever.

There, I've answered your question. Now in the spirit of good debate please answer mine. It's written twice in two different replies so it should be fairly easy for you to find.

 

[ZoneV]

No, I don't expect a £100 photographer's results to be as good as a £1500 photographer. But I'd expect them to be fit for purpose.

If you insist on ignoring my question and continuing with your own then in my eyes the only thing they could do to justify a claim would be to injure someone. That's it. In my eyes there's nothing, apart from perhaps sitting in a corner getting blitzed on red wine and leaving the camera turned off, that could justify a claim. Nothing whatsoever.

There, I've answered your question. Now in the spirit of good debate please answer mine. It's written twice in two different replies so it should be fairly easy for you to find.

That's where you are wrong. If a person is offering a service/product that's not fit for purpose, they are culpable, no matter how cheap they are.

 

[ernesto]

The petrol analogy is stupid. It is still petrol (probably exactly the same petrol) sold more cheaply.

When paying for someones time and experience and the end product you are basing your decision on what they can offer you. In this case they couldn't offer much and the couple paid accordingly.
There is a very high risk that paying a £100 photographer for a wedding will go badly wrong, and it did. this is the risk you accept when going for the £100 option. If you don't like the risk then pay more to lower the risk.

 

[Lyonspride]

Its clear from this thread so far, that in order to sue the couple would have to prove that they didn't get £100 worth of photography. This in a court of law would require a professional witness and any pro tog is gonna slate this young lady and then say the couple got what they paid for.

 

[PMN]

No, I don't expect a £100 photographer's results to be as good as a £1500 photographer. But I'd expect them to be fit for purpose.

Ah, a reply! The problem with that outlook is that you have to define "fit for purpose". To me if I'm paying someone 100 quid to shoot a wedding I'd expect them to know nothing more than how to turn the camera on, I wouldn't expect anything even vaguely approaching quality and that's the whole point. You could buy a 100 quid mountain bike that's "fit for purpose", i.e. general riding, and then take it downhilling and break your back when it disintegrates on the first drop. Is that the fault of the bike or is it your fault for not ensuring you bought the right thing in the first place? I'd say it's not the bike's fault.

A 100 quid photographer is going to be charging that for a reason. Again, pay peanuts and get monkeys!

 

[PMN]

That's where you are wrong. If a person is offering a service/product that's not fit for purpose, they are culpable, no matter how cheap they are.

You asked me what in my eyes they could do to justify a claim. You can't ask me my opinion and then tell me I'm wrong!

Read my post above, it explains why I don't think the way you're looking at this makes any sense.

Its clear from this thread so far, that in order to sue the couple would have to prove that they didn't get £100 worth of photography. This in a court of law would require a professional witness and any pro tog is gonna slate this young lady and then say the couple got what they paid for.

Exactly!

 

[ZoneV]

I think I'll join Supersammy and leave you to it.