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.
If they researched and found that the going rate was £1k for Prep to first dance , but this person was charging £500 for prep
to end of reception (ie nearly twice as much coverage) then I'd say that was reason to be alarmed - of course she conned them thats not in dispute - my point was the gullibility in believing her.
In the heat of the moment, planning an emotional wedding and not being professional wedding planners, a water mark is easily missed.
I guess we should agree to differ on that point
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.
I'd say 50% discount is worryingly low - but in fact its more like 75% because you arent comparing like for like - see the point above
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?
So why dd the DM report that she only confirmed she was attending the day before the wedding - by your logic she'd confirmed that when she took the money
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.
And the bride was incapable of saying "no i don't want to do that " because ?
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.
Refer back to my point about 5 minutes with google - if you don't do even that much research for the alledgedly most important day of your life then you are either very silly, hopelessly naive, or don't care about your photography
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!
I'm not sure what agenda you think I have - we've clearly read different reports
No, they saw the full size images and like I do very often, realised they were useless.
Ditto
Again, no. I didn't read that the counter case was successful at all and seemed utterly groundless to me.
again ditto - in her facebook statement she says that it was succesful... I suppose she could be lying again but there's a lot of info we don't have
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.
Have they ? they won their Money claim aka small claims case - which was essentially that they hadnt received the service for which they paid and thus were entitled to a refund. But their statements since (and the implied statements in the DM havent been tested in court) - of course that go's equally for the togs statements , which is why i said the only way this will be fully tested is if it goes back to court for a defamation hearing (also are you privy to info the judge didn't have on what shes guilty of )
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.
and the difference between being too trusting and being daft is ? (semantic) , also you need to improve your reading comprehension, I'm not supporting the perpetrator at all, ive said over and over again that the misrepresentation is indefensible , but like it or not there are a lot of frauds and charlatans out there, and people need to take some responsibility for not being taken in by them
..
No, apparently not; not even the decision to rip someone off and by your rhetoric you heartily support them.
Not at all - as above if they/ the DM etc are telling the truth about her, then her position/behavior is indefensible, but the couple concerned have also not covered themselves in glory by being too trusting/ naive whatever... also I'd tend to suggest that trial by media isn't exactly fair as the DM etc have not given a fair and balanced representation of both sides
And I realise you disagree and thats fine everything i've written is my opinion not fact - but i suggest we park it there as i don't have the patience for another long multiquote session
