According to UK Metro,more than a third were out of focus and her in-laws weren’t even featured.
David Kilcourse refunded the couple for the photos after they sued him – but Steph fears he may still be working after learning other brides have complained about his work.
‘He caused so much heartache. We have so many moments missing from our big day,’ she said. ‘I’ll do anything to stop him doing this to anyone else. When we got some of the pictures, I said to him “is this all of them because I’m really disappointed?”He turned around and said he took thousands of pictures. When we received them, he’d taken 1636 images and 559 were out of focus. He called them “misfires”.’
Steph says she had no photographs of her in-laws from the big day and only one of her own parents – but the photographer somehow managed to get almost 100 pictures of her two bridesmaids.
‘He took pictures of one of my bridesmaid’s breasts, some of her bum. There were more pictures of just the bridesmaids than anything else. I’m sure he was doing that on purpose,’ she said. ‘I know that photography is interpreted differently by different people but when he takes three pictures of someone’s bum, that’s not an accident.’
Steph and Paul, 30, from Bollington, Cheshire, hired Kilcourse to work at their June 2015 wedding and bought a package which included the full day and all its various stages – including the bride getting ready, ceremony, meal and night time.
The newlyweds successfully took Kilcourse to court in September 2016 and won £601 after he failed to turn up to the case. Steph says she has found out about other brides who have felt let down by the wedding photographer, who was still advertising his services on his website last week.
Dave Kilcourse denied the claims and maintains Steph and Paul’s wedding pictures were ruined by bad weather.
‘The company has folded since then. As far as I’m concerned it’s all done and dusted,’ he said. ‘
As a company we did over 1,000 weddings and we only had, probably in all that time, 10 complaints of that severity. ‘It’s a matter of opinion that we didn’t fulfill the package. Steph said that we didn’t take any outside shots of the wedding, when it was pouring it down all day..
According to my terms and conditions we say that we can’t control the weather. ‘They said I’d taken inappropriate pictures which was disproved. ‘I got so much hassle through weddings that I just stopped doing it. ‘The reason I didn’t turn up to court was that it was in Nottingham, it would have cost me a fortune. The court ruled in her favour.’