The HomeOwners Alliance has said it has ‘serious concerns’ about the Competition and Markets Authority’s proposed £100 million settlement with seven major house builders, and has asked the authority to explain why it has not pursued a fuller investigation.
In an official response to the CMA’s consultation on the matter, the HomeOwners Alliance has questioned the adequacy of the proposed commitments and their implications for homebuyers. The organisation has also criticised the two-week deadline set by the CMA for responses, asking ‘why the rush?’
In a statement issued with the consultation response, HomeOwners Alliance CEO Paula Higgins said:
“While we welcome the CMA’s intervention, we are concerned that the proposed commitments fail homeowners, lack transparency, and risk setting a dangerous precedent. Buying a home is the biggest financial transaction most consumers will ever make.
“If buyers have been overcharged because developers colluded instead of competing, they deserve compensation—not a hollow settlement. I struggle to see how a £100 million fund for affordable housing—especially when the entire programme is worth £39 billion—will make any meaningful difference. More importantly, it does not address the core competition concerns.
“It’s a drop in the ocean compared to developers’ profits, which exceeded £1.8 billion in 2024 alone. Homebuyers deserve a fair deal. The CMA must show it is willing to hold big developers to account. I urge the CMA to change tack and continue with its investigation.”
The consultation response sets out several areas of concern and asks the CMA explain why it has not pursued a fuller investigation to establish whether any liability exists in relation to conduct of the seven house builders which ‘may have distorted competition and inflated prices’.
‘Purchasing a home is the biggest financial transaction that consumers make, and if they have significantly overpaid or were otherwise negatively affected by the house builders seeking to coordinate rather than compete with each other, they should be made aware of this and be properly compensated’, the response points out.
“This is particularly troubling given the scale of potential impact. According to CMA figures, the seven housebuilders combined built approximately 73000 new homes in the 2024 financial year alone. The total number of new homes built by the house builders for the whole period under investigation is clearly likely to be much higher.
“Despite potentially having paid inflated prices as a direct result of the conduct under investigation, purchasers of new homes in this period get absolutely nothing from the CMA’s deal with the house builders.”
The solution proposed by the CMA includes a commitment by the house builders – Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry – to comply with existing competition law rules for five years.
‘In our view, this does not constitution a meaningful commitment, let alone a real deterrent’, the HomeOwners Alliance said.
The organisation has asked the CMA to clarify whether the house builders will be free to resume exchanging commercially sensitive information after the five-year period ends, and if not, why the proposal includes a time limit and what measures will be in place to prevent a recurrence of the same conduct.
The £100 million fund to support affordable housing has also been called into question, which the HomeOwners Alliance claims is ‘a drop in the ocean’ compared to the profits of the housebuilders. The organisation has also shared ‘serious concerns’ about the implementation and oversight of any fund.
The HomeOwners Alliance has called on the CMA to publish a detailed summary of the factual findings underlying its decision, claiming there is ‘a real risk’ that the case will set a precedent for firms to ‘avoid any admission of wrongdoing or liability by offering commitments that amount to little more than compliance with the law’.
‘Moreover, the commitments do nothing to address entrenched monopoly dynamics in the housing market’, the organisation added.
“A small group of large developers continues to dominate supply. This proposed settlement does not disrupt their market power, increase transparency, or improve opportunities for smaller builders or new entrants.
“Given that this is the second time the CMA has had to intervene in response to sector-wide concerns, there is little justification for a lenient settlement.
“We urge the CMA to reject these commitments and instead pursue stronger enforcement action and structural remedies that support fair competition, new entrants, and better outcomes for consumers.”
