Couple’s wrath over wedding snaps wait

Jun 14 2009 by Mr Justice, Sunday Sun

WE are gathered here today to join this woman and her wedding photographs in holy matrimony . . . if we get a chance!

Bride Deborah Sim would like very much to be united with the official snaps of her wedding.

She married her husband Gavin way back in September 2008 and there is still no sign of the pictures taken on their big day.

And time is running out because the couple are set to emigrate to Australia in July.

She fears she may never see the photos taken of their marriage at Linden Hall, Northumberland, in what was otherwise a perfect day.

Deborah, 27, told me: “We were married so long ago but we still don’t have the pictures.

“All of our things are packed, ready to go to Australia . . . but there is no sign of our album.

“We are ringing the photographer regularly and leaving messages on his answering machine, but he doesn’t get back.”

I asked who the less-than-snappy snapper was.

Deborah, of Shiremoor, North Tyneside, told me it was Gordon Bright, of Bright Image.

Gordon Bright? Of Bright Image? Where have I heard that name before?

There was something familiar about him.

Putting that aside for the moment, I asked Gordon to throw some light on the subject of the missing photos. I reminded him that the wedding was in September 2008 and yet, here we are in June 2009, and Deborah has no reminder of the big day.

He said: “No, she hasn’t, because they’re at the printer.

“I am having a real time with the printers. Because they are not based in the UK, they tend to fob you off, fob you off, fob you off.

“The reason I use them is that they’re £160 cheaper than printers in the UK.

“I have spoken to them today and I’m told I’m in a queue and they will get back to me.

“That’s no good to me, obviously, because I’m talking to you.”

And not for the first time, because I remembered dealing with Gordon on a previous occasion.

Putting that aside again, Gordon told me that he was unable to respond to Deborah’s messages because his phone was stolen.

He also said Deborah did not choose the pictures she wanted until the turn of the year, when they were transmitted to the American printers.

He agreed to prioritise Deborah’s complaint and attempt to get the photos – already paid for – before she emigrated. Meanwhile, I asked him if we had spoken before, and he said: “I don’t know, I don’t think so.”

Oh yes, we did, or at least we spoke to each other through voicebank and email.

This is the very same Gordon Bright featured in this column a few months ago. Another bride, another complaint . . . but definitely the same Gordon Bright.

I told how a bizarre row threatened to spoil a bride-to-be’s big day. Michelle Knox was effectively sacked as a customer after asking for posed shots instead of the relaxed ones Gordon had done at a friend’s wedding.

Gordon claimed he was left “under suspicion” by the request and told Michelle to go elsewhere.

He told me at the time: “Both my wife and I decided that Miss Knox’s confidence in us had been shaken. We felt as though we would not be able to photograph her wedding to the best of our ability as the trust was no longer there.

“We decided to cancel our agreement, leaving her plenty of time to find a replacement photographer.”

Michelle had contacted me because she was still waiting for her payment to be returned.

The money was refunded after I spoke to Gordon. Michelle denied he was under suspicion and she simply wanted a certain style of image for her album.

And that brings us back to the latest case. Can Gordon think of any just reason why Deborah and her photographs should not be joined together?

Will he be faithful to their contract and get her photos to her?