The M&J Group bid-rigging fine handed down by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on 24 September marks the first time the regulator has penalised individuals for concealing evidence during a dawn raid, with the construction firm’s estimating director and office manager both receiving personal sanctions alongside the company itself. The CMA fined M&J Group £25,000, estimating director Barry Pirrie £20,000, and office manager Tracey Woods £5,000 following an inspection carried out under a court warrant.
What happened during the CMA inspection
According to the CMA, Pirrie instructed Woods to remove a work mobile phone and paperwork from M&J’s premises before inspectors could examine them. Pirrie also told CMA officers that he did not have a work mobile phone, a claim the regulator describes as false. The items were returned and handed over later the same day, but the CMA said that concealing evidence, even temporarily, “risked the loss of relevant information, and wasted valuable investigative time and resource.”
Ian Giles, EMEA head of antitrust and competition and partner at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, described the outcome as a precedent. “This is notably the first time the CMA has fined individuals for concealing evidence and seems likely to mean that fining relevant individuals, as well as their employer, will become the CMA’s standard practice for such conduct,” Giles said. He added that the timing of the inspection mattered considerably: “Had the dawn raid been carried out a few weeks later, M&J Group could have faced a much higher turnover-based penalty under the new powers [introduced in January 2025].”
Those enhanced enforcement powers, which came into force in January 2025, allow the CMA to impose fixed penalties of up to 1 per cent of turnover, or daily penalties of up to 5 per cent of daily turnover, or both. Because the incident pre-dated that change, M&J was subject to the lower maximum penalties that applied at the time. The CMA was clear that the fines relate solely to the obstruction, and are separate from the underlying competition investigation, which “remains ongoing and no assumptions should be made as to whether competition law has been broken.”
M&J Group bid-rigging probe: the 12 firms under investigation
The CMA launched its bid-rigging investigation in December 2024, focusing on roofing and other construction-related contracts funded through the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) Condition Improvement Fund (CIF). The watchdog said it had reason to suspect that firms providing roofing and construction services had colluded to fix bids for DfE-funded work, potentially breaching the Competition Act 1998. For the 2025/26 financial year, the DfE provided almost £470m in CIF funding to address condition issues in eligible schools, academies and sixth-form colleges.
The full list of 12 firms named in the investigation, as reported by Construction News, comprises: AMR Consult Ltd, Blue Cube Contracting Ltd, Central Roofing and Building Services Ltd, Higham Flat Roofing Ltd (trading as Higham Roofing and Construction), ICE Roofing and Cladding Ltd, Inspire Contract Services Ltd, M&J Group (Construction and Roofing) Ltd, Parias Construction and Interiors Ltd, PSARLD Ltd (trading as Peter Smith Associates), RAM Building Consultancy Ltd, Russell Trew Ltd, and Stoic Roofing and Construction Ltd.
The firms span the roofing and broader construction services sector, with the CMA conducting unannounced inspections at multiple business premises when the investigation was announced. Based on evidence reviewed to date, the CMA has indicated it believes suspected anticompetitive conduct went beyond schools eligible for CIF funding.
At least one of the named firms has sought to distance itself from any suggestion of wrongdoing. Central Roofing and Building Services Ltd stressed it is “fully engaging with the CMA” and assisting in its inquiries, according to Schools Week. The CMA, led by chief executive Sarah Cardell, has not issued a statement of objections to any of the firms; if it provisionally decides competition law has been broken, it will do so and give firms the opportunity to respond, as The Guardian reported when the investigation launched.
Giles framed the personal fines as a warning extending well beyond this case: “Hiding evidence, even for only a matter of hours, can lead to sizeable fines. These penalties should serve as a reminder, both for individuals and businesses, about the risks of failing to comply with a dawn raid.” M&J Group has been contacted for comment.
