Ive lost count of the number of times ive already explained this point but once again
Many thanks. 
They were told she was a pro not a student, and believed her despitethe rock bottom prices she was charging
If they researched and discovered most were charging £1k but this person was charging £500 for similar quality then I fail to see why they should be alarmed. They were shown proof of her ability via her website. In my industry prices vary a hell of a lot more than 100%. They were assured she could provide what they wanted for a very reasonable price but the assurances were based upon fraudulent proof, images which were not her's. Anyone could have fallen for that one, especially in the middle of planning something like a wedding.
They were shown examples of her work which alledgedly werent hers - and alledgedly had other peoples water marks on which they somehow didn't notice
In the heat of the moment, planning an emotional wedding and not being professional wedding planners, a water mark is easily missed.
Based upon pitch and proof they were quoted an insanely low price, which didnt ring any alarm bells presumably because they didnt do any research into what they were buying or what the going rate was
The quote of £500 was half the price you suggest to be the norm in your post below. That's not "insanely" low, it's a 50% discount.
They accepted the price based on what they'd been shown , and paid it in full despite her not having confirmed her availability (and then didnt do anything about the fact that she disapeared until the night before the wedding)
If the photographer could not and did not confirm her availability, how come she took payment and provided the couple with payment details so they could pay in the first place? Surely you only take the payment once you've confirmed and if she wasn't available that day then why on earth would she be pitching for the assignment in the first place?
On the day of the shoot she made them / persuaded them to go for a woodland walk that they didnt want to do but were somehow incapable of saying no to
No, she didn't persuade "them". She persuaded the bride and one other family member to go. The groom was too disabled to go so he waited for them for half an hour at the venue.
They were then provided with something quite different to what they'd been shown, but far more in keeping with what you get for £500 for all day
That's tosh and you know it. How on earth are they supposed to know what to expect for £500? I'll bet you 20 bucks and my left nut that if you go ask 100 people in the high street in Leeds how much they think they'd be expected to pay for a wedding photographer for the day, most wouldn't have a clue and in many areas £500 would be considered on the high side.
They then told her they were happy with the work (shes shown screenshots to that effect) ,
No they didn't and here's where you clearly show you have an agenda. They were given a single screenshot with tiny composite images. I often look at the images on the screen on my X-T1 and think: "WOW! That looks a cracker!!" Then I port it onto my Mac and the ruddy thing is about as bad as it gets! They effectively said the thumbnails provided looked great. They probably did! That doesn't mean the final images were in any way great and from the evidence provided it's clear they weren't!
then changed their minds and complained and she may or may not have told them to f***off - accounts vary
No, they saw the full size images and like I do very often, realised they were useless.
They sued (via money claim) and the judge ordered a return of the fees - alledgedly at the same time she also sued them and won for some manner of fraud theyalledgedly committed in the pepration of their case
Again, no. I didn't read that the counter case was successful at all and seemed utterly groundless to me.
End of the day if they are telling the truth then she is guilty of misrepresntation , but they are also guilty of being daft to the point of stupidity in not researching what they were buying, and accepting dubious bonfides at face value without thinking about whether the deal was too good to be true.
They've already been found to have been telling the truth. That's what judges are for and frankly, she's guilty of a whole lot more than misrepresentation and lucky to get away with just re-imbursement as far as I'm concerned.
Its like the numpties who fall for 419 scams - sure the scammers are utlimately to blame, but the people who fall for them are pretty f*****g daft to be taken in
No, sometimes people are simply too trusting. The fact that they can't be is not an indictment of them but of the society we now live in, which includes those who try to support the perpetrators instead of the victims.
but hey this is the 21st century , no one accepts personal responsibility for any decision they make anymore...
No, apparently not; not even the decision to rip someone off and by your rhetoric you heartily support them.
