Dispute with sole trader

djmsemcgrath

Is the cost of that something that's reasonable to claim as well?

john1

damianjmcgrath wrote: »

- In December 2014, upon recommendation from our wedding venue, we met with a photographer, verbally agreed the services, and received a detailed invoice, which we paid..

I am no lawyer however is the wedding venue somehow implicated / responsible as it was their recommendation?

Not at all sure but I seem to recall if a professional recommends then they have legal responsibilities also.

djmsemcgrath

john1 wrote: »

I am no lawyer however is the wedding venue somehow implicated / responsible as it was their recommendation?

Not at all sure but I seem to recall if a professional recommends then they have legal responsibilities also.

They gave us a list of recommended suppliers and the photographers name and contact details were on there. I have written to the venue but since the wedding, they've stopped recommending him.

I could write to them and request compensation but I think they'd just direct me back to the trader

john1

Hopefully you still have that list? questions need to be asked how was the Photographers details listed. Did a payment ie introductory commission, take place between the photographer and venue when you commissioned the photographer etc?

djmsemcgrath

Yeah I still have that list. It didn't say anything about commission, it was literally just a page in the 80 page wedding pack we received.

john1

As previously, I am no lawyer and this could get involved. As I see it - if the venue recommended a photographer by including his details within their own client wedding pack, then they should have a legal "duty of care" to you, their client.

My comment on introductory commission relates to a payment which is made by the photographer directly to the venue. You pay the photographer say £1000 who then passes on to the venue say £50 for the new business

You definitely need a more specialist person that I, but I believe this to be potential avenue to explore as the photographer has failed to respond.

Do you have insurance such as household which include legal advice? that may help and advise

macman

You can claim your losses (what you paid him) plus your quantifiable expenses. Start getting into claims for stress, mental anguish etc and you will weaken your claim.
You have no real claim against the venue, as I'd be amazed if their small print did not make it clear that they have no liability for their recommendations.
I don't understand why you don't want to make verbal contact? This guy is still trading, and unless you find that others have been similarly treated (which surely the venue would tell you off the record), I can only assume that your pics were somehow been deleted from his camera in error and he hasn't got the nouse to admit that he's screwed up. His only extra work after the event is producing an album, which is probably done elsewhere anyway.
I got the impression that you had given up on the pics anyway and were simply seeking to get your money back.

zax47

damianjmcgrath wrote: »

Yeah I still have that list. It didn't say anything about commission, it was literally just a page in the 80 page wedding pack we received.

More than 1 photographer listed? You choose which one to use?

I think john1's argument is very flaky myself. They weren't holding a gun to your head - you could use him, or someone else. Seems there was no "use our photographer or else" scenario, involving any conditions (such as "additional cost if you don't use ours", as often happens with event discos/DJs for example) It's not like it was their "in-house" photographer that you must use at the exclusion of any other of your choice.

djmsemcgrath

Apologies for the delay in responding.

macman wrote: »

You can claim your losses (what you paid him) plus your quantifiable expenses. Start getting into claims for stress, mental anguish etc and you will weaken your claim.

Fair point, and I'm not one to exaggerate non-existent mental anguish anyway. Would you consider re-staging the photographs with another photographer to be a reasonable expense? This could add hundreds or even another £1,000 to the claim, but I wouldn't want to come across as unreasonable to the courts.

macman wrote: »

I don't understand why you don't want to make verbal contact?
I got the impression that you had given up on the pics anyway and were simply seeking to get your money back.

I have attempted to make verbal contact, but he's avoiding my phone calls. I've tried in the last few days to phone him off another phone, but it goes to voicemail. From the little I know about him, he often travels to places (for weddings, and shows etc) so it's fairly reasonable that he won't always answer his phone. I don't really fancy a 3 hour drive to his house if he won't be there.

I have given up on the photos for several reasons. 1) the family took reasonable photos themselves so the loss of the professional ones isn't catastrophic, although professional ones would be nice and 2) I think what's actually happened is that he's lost them, doesn't want to admit it, and is avoiding me, so there probably aren't any photos anymore and 3) I don't know if a court can order him to hand over photos. I assumed a financial result would be easier to fight for.

zax47 wrote:

More than 1 photographer listed? You choose which one to use?

I think john1's argument is very flaky myself. They weren't holding a gun to your head - you could use him, or someone else. Seems there was no "use our photographer or else" scenario, involving any conditions (such as "additional cost if you don't use ours", as often happens with event discos/DJs for example) It's not like it was their "in-house" photographer that you must use at the exclusion of any other of your choice.

I think holding the venue responsible for the supplier is a little harsh, but some further details may be useful for people to know, so perhaps there's some more good advice I can receive.

We don't know any photographers personally, and the venue is over 100 miles from home, so we didn't know any local photographers. The venue provided us with a list of recommended suppliers (florists, wedding cake maker, photographer, etc) and there was just 1 photographer listed. They encouraged us verbally to use him, as they used him in the past, and due to the venue being a little unusual, they informed us that he was experienced taking photographs in the low light, or in the different rooms, etc. Naturally, it was easier for us to go with him.

We were welcome to use our own photographer though, we weren't tied in, but as we didn't know anyone, using theirs seemed fine.

Their terms and conditions could be read in multiple ways, at least to me, but let me know what you think:

External suppliers, selected by the wedding couple, are not the responsibility of the venue

Now, the phrase external suppliers could mean every single supplier, recommended or not, as everyone is external to the venue, as in, not employed by them. We took it slightly differently to this. We assumed that "recommended suppliers" were, for lack of a better word, internal, especially as we met the photographer at the venue to discuss things. External suppliers could have referred to anyone else, not recommended, that we had selected.

How does everyone read that clause?

I think all of this problem is solely down to the photographer completing ignoring and avoiding me, and I'm not sure how much the venue could have done about that, but do they have any legal duty of care responsibilities here at all?

naedanger

damianjmcgrath wrote: »

Would you consider re-staging the photographs with another photographer to be a reasonable expense?

In my view it is not reasonable claim for both the return of the fee you paid and the cost of getting re-staged photos from another photographer. But I think it would be valid to claim for the extra cost of restaging (within reason) - so if you had to re-hire outfits, pay to get access to a suitable venue etc these additional costs are in my view legitimate losses that you should be able to recover. (In my view, the fact you have alternative photos will probably make it harder to demand these additional costs unless you go ahead and incur them.)

Now, the phrase external suppliers could mean every single supplier, recommended or not, as everyone is external to the venue, as in, not employed by them. We took it slightly differently to this. We assumed that "recommended suppliers" were, for lack of a better word, internal, especially as we met the photographer at the venue to discuss things. External suppliers could have referred to anyone else, not recommended, that we had selected.

How does everyone read that clause?

Personally I don't think there is much ambiguity. If the "recommended supplier" were not covered by your contract with the venue then they are (in my view) external suppliers.

...but do they have any legal duty of care responsibilities here at all?

In my view they have no legal responsibility regarding the supply of the photos.