Below is a draft letter that is legally aggressive, professional, and tailored to your request. It threatens a class action lawsuit against the seven named housebuilders, demands access to relevant correspondence and records held by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) where permitted by law, and lodges a strong complaint against the CMA for its perceived failure to uphold its duty to protect consumers.
Feel free to use this template.
— **[Your Name]** [Your Address] [City, Postcode] [Email Address] [Phone Number] [Date: 10 July 2025]
**To:** Competition and Markets Authority Housebuilding Investigation Team The Cabot, 25 Cabot Square London, E14 4QZ Email: housebuilders-consultation@cma.gov.uk
**Subject:** Submission on Proposed Commitments in Case 51392 – Investigation into Suspected Anti-Competitive Conduct by Housebuilders; Formal Complaint Against CMA’s Provisional Decision
Dear Sir/Madam, I write in response to the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) consultation on its intention to accept commitments offered by seven housebuilders—Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey, and Vistry—in relation to the investigation into suspected breaches of competition law under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 (Case 51392).
This submission vehemently opposes the CMA’s provisional decision to terminate its investigation in exchange for a £100 million payment and other commitments. I assert that this decision represents a gross dereliction of the CMA’s statutory duty to protect consumers and uphold competitive markets.
Furthermore, I demand access to all relevant correspondence and records held by the CMA, as permitted by law, and signal my intention to pursue a class action lawsuit against the named housebuilders for their alleged anti-competitive conduct.
### 1. The CMA’s Dereliction of Duty The CMA’s mandate, as a non-ministerial department tasked with promoting competitive markets and tackling unfair behaviour, is unequivocally to safeguard consumers from the deleterious effects of anti-competitive practices. The investigation into the seven housebuilders was launched following evidence of suspected exchanges of competitively sensitive information, including pricing, property viewings, and buyer incentives, which could prevent, restrict, or distort competition in the housing market. Such conduct, if proven, constitutes a serious breach of the Chapter I prohibition under the Competition Act 1998 and has likely inflicted significant financial harm on consumers, particularly first-time buyers and low-income households already burdened by an undersupplied and inflated housing market. The CMA’s decision to accept a £100 million payment—described as the “largest secured through commitments” (GOV.UK, 9 July 2025)—in lieu of pursuing a formal finding of infringement is an unacceptable capitulation. This sum, while substantial in isolation, is grossly inadequate when viewed against the scale of the housebuilders’ combined profits, which exceed £1 billion annually, and the pervasive harm caused by their alleged collusion. The CMA’s willingness to forego a determination of liability undermines public confidence in its commitment to enforcing competition law and sends a dangerous signal to other industries that anti-competitive behaviour can be absolved through financial settlements without accountability. By proposing to close the investigation without issuing a statement of objections or making a finding of infringement, the CMA is shirking its statutory obligations under the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002. This decision deprives affected consumers of the opportunity to seek redress for inflated prices and restricted choices resulting from the housebuilders’ conduct. It also circumvents the CMA’s duty to deter future violations through robust enforcement, including the imposition of fines up to 10% of a company’s global turnover, as permitted under section 36 of the Competition Act 1998. The CMA’s prioritisation of a swift resolution over a thorough investigation and prosecution is a betrayal of its role as a protector of consumer interests and a guarantor of market integrity.
### 2. Formal Complaint Against the CMA I hereby lodge a formal complaint against the CMA for its handling of this investigation and its provisional decision to accept the proposed commitments. The CMA’s actions contravene its own guidance on Competition Act 1998 procedures (CMA8) and its overarching duty to promote competitive markets for the benefit of consumers. Specifically: – **Failure to Pursue Enforcement Action:** The CMA has evidence suggesting that the housebuilders “regularly and frequently” shared competitively sensitive information, including non-public data on sales prices, incentives, and build-out rates, which could distort competition (X post by @peterproperty, 9 July 2025). Despite this, the CMA has chosen not to proceed to a formal finding of infringement, contrary to its obligation to act decisively where there is credible evidence of anti-competitive conduct.
**Inadequate Remedy:** The £100 million payment, while allocated to affordable housing programmes, does not directly compensate consumers who have overpaid for homes or faced reduced choices due to the housebuilders’ actions. This remedy fails to address the specific harm caused and lacks proportionality given the scale of the alleged misconduct.
**Lack of Transparency:** The CMA’s decision not to publish responses to the consultation (except in summarised form) and its refusal to make a definitive finding of liability obscure the full extent of the housebuilders’ conduct, denying consumers the information necessary to pursue follow-on damages claims. This opacity is inconsistent with the CMA’s commitment to openness and accountability, as outlined in its Personal Information Charter.
**Undermining Deterrence:** By allowing the housebuilders to avoid liability through a financial settlement, the CMA weakens the deterrent effect of competition law enforcement, emboldening other firms to engage in similar practices with the expectation of lenient treatment. I demand that the CMA reconsider its provisional decision and proceed with a full investigation, including the issuance of a statement of objections and, if warranted, an infringement decision. Failure to do so will compel me to escalate this complaint to the CMA’s Independent Complaints Reviewer and, if necessary, seek judicial review of the CMA’s decision for procedural impropriety, irrationality, and failure to act in accordance with its statutory duties.
### 3. Demand for Access to Correspondence and Records Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and, where applicable, the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018, I demand access to all correspondence, documents, and records held by the CMA relating to Case 51392, including but not limited to: – Internal CMA communications regarding the decision to accept the proposed commitments. – Correspondence between the CMA and the seven housebuilders (or their legal representatives) concerning the investigation and the negotiation of commitments. – Evidence gathered during the investigation, including witness statements, internal housebuilder documents, and data on the exchange of competitively sensitive information, to the extent that such disclosure is not exempt under section 44 (prohibitions on disclosure) or other provisions of the FOIA. – Minutes of meetings, reports, or analyses prepared by the CMA that informed its provisional decision to terminate the investigation. I acknowledge that certain information may be withheld under FOIA exemptions, such as commercially sensitive data or information subject to legal privilege. However, I assert that the public interest in transparency regarding suspected anti-competitive conduct in a critical sector like housing outweighs any such exemptions, particularly given the CMA’s decision to forego a finding of liability. I expect a detailed response within the statutory 20-working-day period, specifying any exemptions claimed and the reasoning therefor. Failure to provide access to non-exempt information will result in a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and potential legal action to enforce my rights.
### 4. Notice of Intent to Pursue Class Action Lawsuit I hereby notify the CMA and the seven named housebuilders—Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey, and Vistry—of my intention to organise and pursue a class action lawsuit on behalf of affected consumers, including first-time buyers, low-income households, and others who have suffered financial harm due to the housebuilders’ alleged anti-competitive conduct. The CMA’s investigation has uncovered evidence that these firms exchanged competitively sensitive information, potentially inflating house prices, limiting supply, and restricting consumer choice in the UK housing market. Such conduct, if substantiated, constitutes a breach of competition law and gives rise to actionable claims for damages under section 47A of the Competition Act 1998. The proposed £100 million payment does not absolve the housebuilders of liability or preclude private enforcement actions. The CMA’s decision to terminate its investigation without a formal finding of infringement does not negate the evidence of wrongdoing, which I intend to leverage in a collective redress claim. I am actively engaging with legal representatives and consumer advocacy groups to identify claimants and prepare an application for a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The class action will seek compensatory damages for overpayments, loss of choice, and other economic harms, as well as exemplary damages to deter future anti-competitive conduct. To facilitate this litigation, I demand that the CMA preserve all evidence and records related to Case 51392, as these may be subject to disclosure orders in future proceedings. I also call upon the housebuilders to retain all relevant internal communications, pricing data, and records of information exchanges, as these will be critical to establishing liability and quantifying damages.
### 5. Conclusion and Demands The CMA’s provisional decision to accept the housebuilders’ commitments is a profound failure of its duty to protect consumers and uphold competition law. The £100 million payment, while superficially significant, is a paltry substitute for the rigorous enforcement action that the evidence demands. By allowing the housebuilders to evade accountability, the CMA risks perpetuating a housing market that is already plagued by undersupply, inflated prices, and diminished consumer trust. I demand that the CMA: 1. Reconsider its provisional decision and pursue a formal infringement finding against the housebuilders. 2. Provide access to all non-exempt correspondence and records related to Case 51392, as requested above. 3. Respond to this complaint within 14 days, outlining the steps it will take to address the concerns raised. Should the CMA proceed with its current course, I will escalate my complaint, seek judicial review, and support efforts to hold the CMA accountable for its inaction. Concurrently, I will advance preparations for a class action lawsuit against the seven housebuilders to secure justice for affected consumers. I reserve all rights to take further legal action as necessary. Please direct all correspondence to the contact details provided above. Yours sincerely, [Your Full Name] —
### Notes and Recommendations:
1. **Legal Review:** This letter includes strong legal assertions and threats of litigation, which could have implications for you as the sender. Before sending, consult a solicitor specialising in competition law or consumer rights to ensure the claims are accurate and strategically sound. They can also advise on the feasibility of a class action and the FOIA request.
2. **FOIA Request:** The demand for records is framed under the FOIA, but the CMA may invoke exemptions (e.g., section 44 for information obtained during investigations). A legal advisor can help refine the request to maximise the likelihood of disclosure.
3. **Class Action:** Pursuing a class action under UK law requires a CPO from the CAT, which is a complex process. The letter signals intent but does not commit you to filing immediately. Engage with a law firm experienced in collective redress to assess the viability of the claim.
4. **Tone and Impact:** The letter is aggressive but professional, avoiding personal attacks or inflammatory rhetoric. If you prefer a different tone (e.g., more conciliatory or less litigious), let me know, and I can revise it.
5. **Submission Deadline:** The CMA’s consultation closes on 24 July 2025. Ensure the letter is submitted before 5:00 PM on that date to be considered. Email submission to housebuilders-consultation@cma.gov.uk is recommended, with a hard copy sent by recorded delivery for confirmation.
6. **Citations:** The letter incorporates information from the provided web results and X posts, cited as per your guidelines. If additional evidence or specific legal provisions are needed, please provide them, and I can enhance the letter. If you require further revisions, additional legal arguments, or assistance with next steps, please let me know!
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer; please consult one.
CMA Consultation Link: