John and Alice Harper have run a clothes store in Manchester since 1996
M.E.N. INVESTIGATION: The King Street clothing store that never existed. Charlotte Fisher and James Holt report.
Stood outside their plush King Street shop John and Alice Harper, a well-dressed elderly couple, look the very image of respectable Mancunian charm.
Their smiles are in contrast to the sad announcement on their Facebook account that their high-end clothing business, Harper Manchester, is set to close after a successful 29-years trading in the heart of the city.
The trouble is, neither they nor their shop exist.
The advert announcing the sad closure of the shop reads: “After 29 wonderful years, we are closing our doors! It’s with a heavy heart that we announce the closing of our beloved shop, Harper Manchester.
“Over the years we’ve cherished every moment – connecting with you, sharing our love for fashion and being a part of your special occasions. But now, it’s time for us to close this chapter.”
The image accompanying the ad is clearly fake. AI is known to struggle with hands and fingers and the unnatural position of Mr Harper’s thumb is a clear give away.
Manchester City Council has confirmed that the business was not operating from a store in the city and never existed in the first place.
A page on the dedicated website for the ‘store’ also had a return address for parcels – some 6,000 miles away in Zhejiang, China.
The site, appearing to sell branded clothing items at slashed prices, also ships from the country instead of here in the UK.
A closing down sale countdown clock on their website, that never reaches zero, is also in place under the guise that the business is actually closing down, to encourage shoppers to think they are nabbing a quick deal.
It has remained online for a number of days and simply just resets when the web page is refreshed.
The Manchester Evening News ordered an item from the website which is yet to be delivered.
The ‘Marisa™ Chic Contrast Sweater’, supposedly reduced in price by 78% from £139.95, costs £29.95 and is “an elegant piece with contrasting details that adds character to all your outfits.”
The photos of the sweater on the site show that the item is also being sold on Amazon, Temu and various other sites online when you perform a reverse image search.
On Amazon the jumper is being sold for $25.99 under the brand ‘Generic’. The same photos as Harper Manchester are used on the listing.
The Harper website states: “At Harper, our passion extends beyond creating clothing; we craft styles that reflect individuality, confidence, and the spirit of Manchester.
“Established in 1996, we’re committed to designing men’s and women’s apparel that merges classic elegance with modern trends.
“Collaborating with skilled designers and artisans from around the world, we bring you collections that inspire self-expression, embrace authenticity, and celebrate quality.
“Each piece is thoughtfully crafted to ensure comfort, durability, and timeless appeal.”
Manchester City Council does not hold information on the business – and a search of Companies House also showed no evidence that the store exists in Manchester or anywhere in the UK.
However the council has had no direct complaints about the business and would be unable to act as it is out of their jurisdiction.
Councillor Lee-Ann Igbon, Executive Member for Vibrant Neighbourhoods said: “The Council is aware of this business, which clearly is not operating in Manchester, and understands that it is a Chinese-based firm.
“In relation to its trading practices we have not received any complaints from customers nor are we aware of any criminal wrongdoing.”
While the council have not received any complaints about the company, there are countless one-star reviews of the business on Trustpilot, warning people to not order from it.
One customer said: “If I could put zero stars I would.
“Absolutely shocking, they advertise as a family company but they buy TAT from china. My orders are nothing like advertised and now they say not accepting returns.
“1 dress they charged me £29.99 and the same dress pictured is on Shein for £6.75.”
The Trustpilot reviews on Harper Manchester’s website, however, tell a different story.
It claims to have 863 reviews – most of them being 5 stars – all celebrating the “super-fast delivery and perfect product” that the customer received. But these reviews do not link to any website and do not exist anywhere else on the internet.
It comes after Martin Lewis warned about online scam adverts featuring a realistic computer-generated likeness of him. He claims ‘big tech’ are ‘not properly regulating scams’ on their websites.
He said: “We live in a wild west when it comes to scam ads at the moment. It was six years ago I sued Facebook about this.
“And we got an out of court settlement to set up a scam ad charity and to change some of the way Facebook works.
“After years of campaigning we got the last government to put in the Online Safety Act that scam ads were included. But they’re not even going to do the consultation on that until next year.
“And it’s unlikely the new rules will come in until 2027 and they will only cover the big firms. There’ll still be no rules for the smaller firms. So no one is protecting you when it comes to scam adverts.”
Join the Manchester Evening News WhatsApp group HERE
Harper Manchester’s Facebook page – now taken down for violating Meta’s policies – put out adverts with the same closing down message that appears on their website, saying: “Everything has to go!”
The address listed on the page is in Southend-on-Sea.
Meta says that ads on their site must not promote products, services, schemes or offers using identified deceptive or misleading practices, including those meant to scam people out of money or personal information.
This type of false advertising is not a one-off. Harper’s return address appears on multiple different online clothing stores – all following the same format and featuring AI images.
Charlotte’s Footwear is supposedly having a closing down sale in New York City after 34 years of ‘pouring my heart into crafting high-quality leather footwear,’ and Susan’s Boutique, which says it was established in 1999 in London, is throwing a spring sale.
Other businesses in Toronto and Wellington, New Zealand have already been taken offline.
An Ofcom spokesperson said: “Sites and apps in scope of the Online Safety Act include search services and ‘user-to-user’ services with a significant number of UK users or targeting the UK market.
“User-to-user services are where people may encounter content – including images, videos, messages or comments – that has been generated, uploaded or shared by other users (‘user-generated content’). Search services are where people can search more than one website or database.
“Services in scope of the Act had until 16 March to assess the risk of people in the UK encountering illegal user-generated content or activity on their sites and apps – including fraud. On 17 March, duties came into force that mean tech firms must now start putting appropriate measures in place to mitigate these risks, and to remove illegal user-generated material quickly when they become aware of it.
“In due course, some of the most widely-used sites and apps, known as “categorised” services, will be subject to additional duties under the Act, including tackling paid-for fraudulent advertising that is not user-generated content.
“In February, Government set thresholds in secondary legislation to determine which platforms will be subject to these additional duties. We are now developing our register of categorised services, which we aim to publish this summer.
“We will then consult on codes of practice that will set out measures categorised services can take to comply with these additional duties. For example, that might include the checks they carry out on potential advertisers before placing adverts, and the action they take if they receive complaints about fraudulent advertisements.”
As well as drawing you in to buy their products by creating a false back story and narrative to the brand, these fake businesses profit from being overseas and not subject to UK laws.
Many customers complain they don’t receive what they ordered, items which are mis-described or faulty, they have difficulty in returning items when the only address is in China, or that they are unable to get their money back.
Trading Standards say they are nationally aware of a number of fraudulent websites which appear to be based in the UK but which are actually based in the far east.
They say that, as the individuals behind these sites are based overseas, it makes criminal enforcement particularly difficult, although legislation does allow enforcers to apply to the courts to have websites taken down in certain circumstances.
‘Harper Manchester’ has been contacted for comment.
