Shoppers loved Australia’s ‘fabric queen’. Then, order by order, her story fell apart

Nerida HansenAt 6ft tall and plus-size, shop-bought garments had by no means fitted Maree O’Connor effectively.Stitching supplied her an answer – permitting her to make use of lovely materials to make clothes that match excellent.Someday, whereas looking out for vibrant prints to make new attire, she noticed some “wonderful” materials being offered on-line.Enticed by a yellow floral sample and one other black-and-white summary design, she splashed out $600 (£450, A$900) on three orders.Months later, none had arrived.Chris Hopkins/BBCMaree O’Connor questioned if different patrons had additionally been ready for his or her purchasesIt was October 2024, and uninterested in ready, the authorized research instructor from Melbourne, Australia, determined to arrange a Fb group to attempt to discover out if anybody else was in the identical boat.The group exploded. Inside two weeks it had drawn lots of of members, based on Ms O’Connor.She had unearthed a scandal that might eat the stitching world – from China to Europe, to the US.Within the group, different stitching fans detailed how they too had been ready months – and in some instances years – for materials to reach, whereas a provider alleged it was owed tens of 1000’s of {dollars}.Australia’s ‘formidable’ cloth queenAt the centre of the controversy was globally famend designer, Nerida Hansen.Her firm had grown quickly in the course of the pandemic, when she made a reputation for herself promoting daring, distinctive style prints that set her store other than different retailers.In style with sewists – as members of the stitching group name themselves – around the globe, her materials typically appeared in influencers’ Instagram posts. Some newspapers had even dubbed her Australia’s queen of materials.”Individuals favored what she was doing and producing,” mentioned UK-based artist Gabriela Larios, who has labored with Ms Hansen.”My impression of her was that she was doing one thing totally different and new in Australia,” added Sarah Rowe, one other artist who labored with Ms Hansen. “I used to be impressed by her, she was formidable.”The orders that by no means arrivedMeagan ShuptarBergen Anderson had additionally positioned orders that by no means arrivedThat’s precisely what excited Bergen Anderson, who ordered greater than $3,300 (£2,500; A$5,000) of Ms Hansen’s materials in 2024.She deliberate to make use of them to make garments which she would promote via her US-based kids’s clothes enterprise.However, as in Ms O’Connor’s expertise, none of Ms Anderson’s items arrived inside the eight-week window that was promised.As an alternative, she obtained a variety of what she described as “generic” emails, saying her orders had been quickly to be printed and shipped.She additionally obtained a variety of emails from Ms Hansen saying suppliers had been delayed sending items due to occasions like nationwide holidays.”It was each excuse underneath the solar,” Ms Anderson mentioned.Pissed off and in quest of solutions, she too stumbled upon Ms O’Connor’s Fb group.In it, she discovered prospects questioning the place their cash had gone – and why the corporate was nonetheless accepting orders regardless that so many individuals had been saying their materials hadn’t been printed or shipped.Suspicious of Ms Hansen’s enterprise practices, Ms O’Connor inspired prospects to request refunds and dispute transactions with their banks.Ms Anderson solely managed to get two out of three funds reversed via her financial institution, which means she was nonetheless $808 (£606; A$1,224) out of pocket.In the meantime, Ms Hansen had turn out to be conscious of the Fb group and contacted Ms O’Connor asking for it to be taken down, claiming that content material posted within the group was defamatory – a declare Ms O’Connor rejected.Ms O’Connor mentioned Ms Hansen additionally supplied her an instantaneous refund if she not wished to attend for her items.”I obtained my refund just about immediately, as a result of she needed to close me up.”However she determined to not shut up – or delete the group.”She was simply going to proceed to do what she was doing, and take cash from folks as a result of folks had been siloed proper, they did not know what was happening.”Within the group folks had been sounding alarm bells about bulletins from Ms Hansen saying she was rebranding, frightened about what that might imply for his or her undelivered orders.Ms Hansen went on to commerce underneath a variety of totally different enterprise names on-line.’We trusted her an excessive amount of’By then the group had grown past disgruntled prospects to additionally embrace Nerida Hansen’s suppliers.William Shan labored for a provider in China that offered materials to Ms Hansen’s firm – till, he mentioned, the funds stopped.He was “helpless” when he “by chance found” the Fb group, he mentioned.Mr Shan alleged Ms Hansen’s agency didn’t pay for 2 cloth shipments value $52,000 (£39,000; A$78,700) in 2022.He mentioned he initially felt sympathy for Ms Hansen, who he thought “might have encountered difficulties”.Nerida HansenNerida Hansen made a reputation for herself promoting daring, distinctive style printsHe continued supplying her within the hope it will “assist her get well as quickly as potential and accumulate her [company’s] money owed”.However he says later orders – value 1000’s of {dollars} – additionally went unpaid.”We [trusted Nerida] an excessive amount of. From 2020 to the top of 2021, Nerida’s credit score [had] been persistently good. So we did this silly factor of continuous to produce her,” Mr Shan mentioned.Mr Shan’s firm mentioned it had employed quite a few legal professionals to attempt to get well the cash owed by Ms Hansen’s corporations, however she and her enterprise associates stopped speaking.’An actual deception’The BBC additionally spoke to 11 artists and illustrators who mentioned they’d not been paid for his or her work with Ms Hansen’s model.Clémence Albertus, primarily based in France, mentioned she had been approached by Ms Hansen at an artwork honest in Paris about collaborating on cloth prints.Given Ms Hansen was “actually identified for her materials”, Ms Albertus mentioned she selected to belief her.In line with Ms Albertus, Ms Hansen needed to license one among her designs to be offered in collaboration with a big European cloth retailer referred to as Verhees – a possibility Ms Albertus did not wish to miss out on.However after sending over her design, a fragile floral print, she heard nothing from Ms Hansen for months.”I believed Verhees modified their thoughts, or that the collaboration Nerida x Verhees failed,” Ms Albertus mentioned.That was till sooner or later in August final yr, when she found her sample “by probability” on the market on the Verhees web site. She mentioned it had been edited in several colourways with out her session.VerheesMs Albertus says her sample design was featured within the Nerida Hansen x Verhees collectionMs Albertus contacted Ms Hansen quite a few occasions asking about royalty statements and cost particulars however is but to obtain any cash.”It has been an actual deception,” she mentioned, including that she estimates she is owed €2,000-€4,000 (£1750-3500; A$3,500-7,000).Verhees instructed the BBC it was not liable for royalty funds owed to designers featured in its assortment, and that Ms Hansen was solely liable for paying these.It added it had now suspended the Nerida Hansen x Verhees collaboration.Not all of the artists who spoke to the BBC felt Ms Hansen was completely responsible for the shortage of funds from her companies.Bron Alexander, primarily based in New Zealand, mentioned whereas she was owed funds for earlier tasks with Ms Hansen, it was her personal fault she hadn’t been paid for her Verhees assortment work as she’d failed to offer invoices when requested by Ms Hansen’s workforce.Ms Alexander added that she believed Ms Hansen was a “visionary” and mentioned she had “a lot empathy” for her monetary state of affairs. “She solely ever needed us [artists] to achieve success.”Others insisted enterprise merely wasn’t Ms Hansen’s forte.”I actually consider she needed the perfect for everyone, I actually consider she needed to have the ability to ship, I actually consider she needed to have the ability to pay everyone,” mentioned Sarah Rowe, an artist who used to collaborate with Ms Hansen and isn’t owed any cash. “I actually consider she had good intentions to do all these issues, and I additionally consider enterprise will not be her jam.”Ms O’Connor felt otherwise.”I believe she’s fairly intentional in what she’s doing,” she mentioned. “If she was a disorganised businesswoman she would have give up some time in the past.”Gabriela LariosGabriela Larios – whose cloth was offered within the Nerida Hansen x Verhees assortment – additionally mentioned she was ready to be paid for her workAn official warningIn September 2025, almost a yr after Ms O’Connor began the Fb group, a public warning in opposition to Ms Hansen and her companies was issued by the Victoria state shopper rights company.It was the results of a number of complaints – Ms O’Connor had suggested fellow prospects on the group to report their experiences to Australian authorities.”I urge shoppers to be cautious about buying items from Hansen’s on-line platforms or participating additional with Hansen,” Client Affairs Victoria (CAV) director Nicole Wealthy mentioned.Chris Hopkins/BBCMs O’Connor suggested fellow prospects to request refunds and report Ms Hansen’s companies to authoritiesThe warning mentioned that over the course of 1 yr, the company had been contacted greater than 120 occasions by prospects claiming to have misplaced greater than $19,800 (£14,900; A$30,000) in purchases.It additionally mentioned Ms Hansen had operated on-line underneath a spread of enterprise names, together with Indigo Palm, The Type Merch Co, Nerida Hansen Materials, Insurgent Quilts, Australian Floor Artwork Collective, Material and Design and Nerida Hansen Print and Textiles. Ms Hansen mentioned this was unfaithful, denying she used all of those to commerce.After the warning was issued, Ms Hansen introduced she could be shutting down her companies by the top of the month to begin a brand new profession.However she continued selling cloth gross sales on the web site domains International De-stash and neridahansen.com into November.Hansen admits she failed customersIn an announcement to the BBC, Ms Hansen admitted she had made some “very poor” selections referring to her companies, including her actions had brought about her “nice disgrace and embarrassment”.She mentioned she had skilled monetary difficulties that led to her liquidating her firm in late 2022 – earlier than opening a brand new one in a brand new identify.Following that, she mentioned she fell additional behind with orders in 2024, citing provider points and enterprise mismanagement, however insisted she was nonetheless answerable for the state of affairs.”Despite the fact that I mismanaged orders terribly I used to be steering my very own enterprise wheel,” she mentioned.She had supposed to have all orders accomplished by the top of January 2025, she mentioned, however the creation of the Fb group had led to a wave of refund requests and financial institution chargebacks being submitted all on the similar time.This left the enterprise overwhelmed, Ms Hansen mentioned, and brought about her buying and selling account to be frozen.She nonetheless supposed to fulfil each order and refund owed to her prospects, she said, however didn’t at present have the means to take action.She alleged the eye delivered to her companies on-line by Ms O’Connor’s Fb group had amounted to “horrific social media harassment” and defamation.She claimed Ms O’Connor went past advocating for justice on-line. She accused her of encouraging others within the Fb group to interact in what she describes as amounting to “digital stalking” and “bodily stalking”, and that Ms O’Connor “publicly made deliberate makes an attempt to sabotage [her] livelihood”.Ms O’Connor disputed these allegations saying they had been “outrageous”.”Clients being persistent and demanding by way of looking for a refund or product that the seller had fortunately taken cash for will not be harassment,” she mentioned.Regardless of all the things that has occurred, Ms O’Connor is set to proceed stitching – although she insists she’s going to by no means put on any of Nerida Hansen’s designs once more.She’s going to proceed to combat till Ms Hansen’s companies are shut down, she says.”Some persons are nonetheless awaiting justice and we hope that may be achieved.”