Communications, Social Media, Contracts And Refunds

This case involves a new, up-and-coming wedding photographer (Rebecca Lloyd T/A Rebecca Lloyd Photography) and an established, award-winning wedding fayre and events business (Helen Beck T/A National Wedding Exhibitions UK). Both companies are based in South Wales.

For reference, the case was held in Pontypridd County Court and is reference Number 456MC682. The hearing was listed publicly and was open to the public.

This blog highlights several key areas for small businesses, especially wedding photographers and wedding fayre/event organisers, and also covers some general areas including employment contracts, disclaimers, invoices and contract clauses. The information I have presented demonstrates some of the points I wish to make regarding the legal areas surrounding this case.

This is part of a series of blogs I have written over the past years about the legal aspects of the wedding industry. The last one, regarding contract clauses and misrepresentation, can be found here.

Short Back Story.

I'm going to keep this deliberately short for this section.

Rebecca Lloyd Photography contacted the National Wedding Exhibitions UK and asked for space at several wedding fayes.

National Wedding Fayres UK said yes and sent an invoice and a booking form.

From an evidentiary perspective, it is essential to note that ONLY the booking form was sent to Rebecca (a statement was presented to the court by Helen Beck that the Terms & Conditions were sent). However, Helen Beck's bundle evidence did not support this claim, just a blank unsigned copy of the Terms and Conditions. An email presented by Rebecca showed clearly only one attachment, the booking form, was included in the email.). However, the booking form says you agree to the Terms and Conditions by signing it, and the judge ensured both parties knew this. Rebecca most likely signed this for several reasons. She was new, she was inexperienced, and she was excited. (My note - it's probably just me who reads T&Cs anyway. Most of us don't bother until stuff like this happens.)

Wedding Rebecca Lloyd Photography paid the invoice, signed and dated the booking form, returned it, and was all set for the wedding fayres.

(My note. The judge needed to sort out some confusion over the invoices here. A discount was offered, and an invoice was sent out. During this section, the judge struggled to understand the amounts involved and the discount applied (or not applied) and concluded that a further sum was owed by Helen Beck T/A National Wedding Fayres UK to Rebecca. This was agreed to be £62.50, and Helen Beck agreed to pay this sum before the judge decided.)

Rebecca subsequently noted that the National Wedding Fayres UK had not tagged her business, Rebecca Lloyd Photography (or other businesses due to exhibit) in several social media posts, namely those on Instagram. Rebecca tagged herself and messaged National Wedding Fayres UK to mention this and suggested tagging the business. It's important to note several things here:

1. IG / Meta policy is for any business to tag other businesses using their images.

2. UK Copyright law - if you use any image for commercial use, you must have the owner's permission. (My note - I couldn't find on either the booking form or the TCs that permission was granted to National Wedding Fayres by the owner of the images for such use. More on this section later)

3. Professional courtesy

4. Communication with couples attending those wedding fayres allows them to see suppliers they may have viewed online and visit them in person.

A subsequent series of messages were sent by Rebecca Lloyd Photography and National Wedding Fayres UK regarding the tagging of posts, which ultimately resulted in the individual managing the social media for National Wedding Fayres UK feeling offended and offering a full refund. Wedding Rebecca Lloyd Photography agreed to the refund and sent bank details. All of this messaging was done on a social media platform. I have included those messages, with permission from Rebecca, below as they form the basis of Rebecca's claim and the subsequent judgment.

Where names associated with National Wedding Exhibitions UK are displayed, I have redacted those.

A telephone conversation ensued between Rebecca and Helen, and after this, Rebecca called me. She was upset, tearful and anxious. We had a conversation that resulted in me posting a video on my FB page regarding the threats from Business A to Business B that revolved around ensuring that Business B would never work in South Wales again. No names were mentioned during that video, which is still available, dated 10th October. (My note. Based on other conversations with various industry suppliers, I 100% believe that Rebecca was threatened with being blacklisted in South Wales during that conversation)

Due to my mentoring of Rebecca Lloyd Photography via Business Wales, I became involved, and the National Wedding Fayres UK owner initiated a call with me. I attempted to mediate; Helen was intransigent and resorted to passive-aggressive insults, further confirming my note above.

Rebecca Lloyd Photography sent two letters requesting the refund after it was not forthcoming. There was an issue surrounding finding the correct postal address for National Wedding Exhibitions UK; however, that is outside the scope of the case for the most part, though I will touch on this and other areas at the end of this blog.

Rebecca eventually took the matter to court for the refund she thought she was legally entitled to.

Making A County Court Claim for Money Owed

To make a "Small Claims Court claim" there are hurdles and paperwork that need to be sorted out as well as the costs of making the claim.

Mediation must occur before a court case comes before a judge. Helen Beck failed three times to enter mediation fully, missing all three calls/meetings.

National Wedding Fayres UK eventually paid a partial refund of £125 without any supporting information as to why or what it was precisely for ,once the court papers were sent.

What Happens At A County Court Claim for Money Owed

The judge is ONLY interested in the legal aspect of the case. Not the emotional stuff.

That is not to say that including evidence to prove your point shouldn't be included in your evidence bundle and to refute/provide evidence to show that the other party isn't as honest as they suggest. In short, if you are either making a claim or defending a claim, you must provide the evidence, and if possible, the legal arguments, to back your position. The judge is there to decide the legality, though if you believe that particular areas of law apply (such as copyright law and contract in this case), you can point that out. In this case, consumer law does not apply as it was between two businesses.

If the claim against you is substantial, then you must get legal representation. It would be best to have PI / PL insurance, which is what it's there for. (My note - As an example. I was taken to court around 11 years ago for £6,500. The claimant, a bride, lost the case substantially. If you want to know more, just ask me; there's a lot of conjecture and gossip. When the claim went to court in Cardiff, my insurance company provided a barrister to represent me, and I paid a total of £150 in excess. Nothing else, no legal fees, barrister fees, court fees, and the total amount payable to the bride was £250 based on an area of travel legislation! A far cry from the £6,500 initially claimed for.)

The judge will read both bundles fully and look at what is being claimed. At the start of court, the judge will attempt to get to the nub of the matter quickly, summarise what is being claimed, and move on.

It helps tremendously if you put your bundle together logically, follow a timeline, and include evidence that can be referenced and found easily. If you have evidence to refute an allegation, you include it. You include provable evidence, not half conversations on social media, not notes that anyone could have written, not irrelevant information from 5 years ago. Evidence has to prove something; your word isn't good enough - hence the comment above regarding the honesty of the individuals concerned.

(My note - On a personal note, I find it highly disrespectful of the UK legal system and the time it takes for the judge/court if this doesn't happen by one side or the other. The legal system has to be paid for by our taxes and should be respected. )

Court Judgement

This is a short recap of what happened. (Some of my notes may not be as accurate as my memory and may be subject to change once that judgment comes out.)

The nub was around not "tagging" a business and offering a refund that didn't materialise.
National Wedding Fayres UK offered a refund via social media. It is irrelevant that the social media "person" on the other end of the messaging system didn't have the authority to offer a refund, it has to be assumed they had permission.
National Wedding Fayres UK removed the social media posts regarding the wedding Rebecca Lloyd Photography and requested Rebecca Lloyd Photography to do the same.
In doing #3, National Wedding Fayres UK confirmed they had cancelled Rebecca Lloyd Photography's attendance at the event, NOT Rebecca Lloyd Photography.
Rebecca Lloyd Photography understood the removal of the post as further confirmation of cancellation by the wedding fare business.
Two formal letters were sent by Rebecca Lloyd Photography requesting the refund, but they were ignored.
National Wedding Fayres UK refunded £125 ~ once the papers letter had been served.
National Wedding Fayres UK was ordered to pay £250 (Note—this being the sum owed—the invoice/payment/wedding fayre dates get a bit confusing!).
National Wedding Fayres UK was ordered to pay an additional £109 in costs

Additional Information

Therefore, the total sum payable by the wedding fare business was £359. When asked by the judge if this could be paid immediately, the owner of National Wedding Fayres UK said no. The Judge suggested a payment scheme, and Helen Beck suggested six months, which Rebecca Lloyd Photography accepted. Whilst this may seem unusual, for a payment period to be requested, it is often used by larger organisations. Also, court fines like this are not deductible expenses.

The first payment is due on or before the end of April 2024, and each subsequent payment on the last day of the month is due for six months, a sum of £59.83 per month. Helen Beck, T/A National Wedding Fayres UK, agreed this was manageable.

EDIT - I believe that Rebecca had to initiate further action, via the court bailifs to finally get paid.

(My note: Failure to pay the award and costs can have serious consequences; click here for more information.)

Notes from Me, a not-legally trained wedding photographer

Rebecca attempted to help, and her heart was in the right place, as seen from the screenshots above. She was not abusive or rude, as indicated by the defendant, Helen Beck, etc. Rebecca works in the social media industry, has worked for large global organisations in similar roles, and knows her stuff. It does not matter whether a company is large or small—the same rules and laws apply.

This whole issue could have easily been avoided had the person at the other end of National Wedding Fayres UK social media taken the advice in the spirit it had been given - to help. This demonstrates the very easy way online communications can rapidly be carried out of context and result in a court case. We've all been there.

This would have been a different court case if Helen Beck, T/A National Wedding Fayres UK had the appropriate disclaimers on their websites / booking forms / TCs etc that ONLY Helen Beck can offer and approve refunds, etc. This is a case of poor employment practices (employment contracts/training/job specifications, etc.) that left a young and possibly inexperienced staff member floundering and unsure of what to do. The fault here lies solely with National Wedding Fayres UK. That is why so many corporate organisations have policies on social media use and email footers. In that case, you must make it clear on as many channels as possible that NO contracts or agreements can be entered into on social media, etc and that only authorised individuals can make such statements and contracts. If you have a social media manager check this.

A contract can be formed using e-mail, Text, WhatsApp AND private messaging systems such as social media. Such was the main issue in this case. A contract DOES NOT have to be signed to be legal either; see my blog on this one by clicking here despite many experienced wedding industry professionals insisting on signed contacts from couples. Your actions during any process involving a dispute will directly impact the case should it go to court; in this case, the removal of Rebecca's social media ads by National Wedding Fayres UK and their request for Rebecca to remove the posts/ads she had done.

When National Wedding Fayres UK removed the social media posts regarding attendance at the wedding fayres and requested Rebecca remove her posts, this further confirmed that a contract (the offer of a refund from National Wedding Fayres UK) was in place and that National Wedding Fayres UK had cancelled Rebccas attendance at the wedding fayres.

A contract is only as good when proven to be good in court. I know this from personal experience, having had mine tested in court. I have spent a not inconsiderable amount of money ensuring my 16-page contract is as fair, open, honest and transparent as possible. Some of you may read that "16 pages" and say WTF. A one-page document will not cover all areas, making it easier for a client, or complicated for you, should the matter go to court.

Finding the correct address to send the court papers to was a PITA. Both Rebecca and I struggle to find an address. I can empathise with this defendant's particular situation somewhat, but I believe that an invoice, legally, HAS to include an address. HMRC are very specific about it - see here for HMRC guidelines in invoices. For example, an address must be included, a unique reference number (not a one-off number you start again with yearly), the total amount being charged, etc. All of these were not present on the invoice sent by National Wedding Fayres UK. If you don't wish to have your home address listed on an invoice, then you can rent an address for correspondence - click here for an example.

Even if it's a small claim you want to make or defend against your PI / PL insurance company, will often include free legal advice. The defendant in this case, Helen Beck, didn't appear to take any advice and instead relied on friends in the industry. Had Helen taken legal advice (not from other friends in the industry) and given the full facts without emotional intrusions, I am 100% sure she would have been told to pay the total refund that was offered, and this case would not have come to court. Bear in mind that costs were also awarded against Helen, which could have been avoided.

You must be open, honest, and transparent with anything you send into court. Although you are not asked to take an oath, you are expected not to lie either. Every direct statement you make must be provable, as I highlighted in the first section regarding the sending of the booking form and TC's

Wedding fayre and event organisers

Attempting to put liability onto the client when you have to cancel/move a date, trying to refuse refunds and offer other dates, or insisting that a refund will only be given if another client steps in to take your place or advising the client to use their own insurance are I believe unfair. It's irrelevant that you had no control over the matter. No service was provided so you can't keep all of the money. See the link at the start of this blog that covers just such a court case last year with a similar clause.

If you use images from your suppliers for your advertising, you must get their permission and do all the usual tags, credits etc. Small businesses are very relaxed about protecting copyright, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored. A good piece of advice would be to request 4 or 5 images from your suppliers that you can use to market your wedding fayre and the supplier. Don't just take images from social media or websites.

Summary

This was lax and sloppy business management at its best and could easily have been avoided by tagging the business as per IG policy, correct training of staff (even casuals/cash paid), employment contracts, job specifications, visible disclaimers, getting professional legal advice, just paying the refund immediately, or entering into mediation - whether unofficial or official. This really needn't have gone to court.