A construction company and two employees have been fined after a Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) inspection in which a work phone and papers were taken away from the premises. For smaller contractors, the case is a reminder that handling records properly matters from the first moment of an investigation, whatever its eventual outcome.
The penalties announced on 24 September concern compliance with the inspection, not a finding that the company broke competition law. The separate investigation into suspected bid rigging in roofing and other construction work remains open. That distinction matters: firms should not treat an investigation as proof of wrongdoing, but should take any request to preserve or produce evidence seriously.
What happened during the inspection?
The CMA says it searched M&J Group’s premises under a court warrant in December 2024. Its officers were investigating suspected arrangements between construction companies bidding for contracts, including work for schools. According to the regulator, an estimating director told an office manager to remove a work mobile phone and documents so investigators would not find them. The director also told officers he did not have a work phone.
The phone and papers were returned later that day. Even so, the CMA says temporarily concealing them risked losing relevant information and wasted investigative time. It imposed a £25,000 penalty on the company, a £20,000 penalty on the director and a £5,000 penalty on the office manager: £50,000 in all. The case page says the penalty decisions were made on 17 September 2026 and published on 24 September.
The CMA has not decided whether any of the companies in the wider bid-rigging investigation breached competition law. Its case page explicitly warns against making that assumption. The fines here relate to the separate failure to comply with investigatory requirements.
Why this matters beyond one construction firm
The case shows that a small or medium-sized firm can face a serious problem during an inspection even before the underlying competition question is resolved. The CMA’s published guidance says a person who knows or suspects that a Competition Act investigation is being, or is likely to be, carried out must not falsify, conceal, destroy or otherwise dispose of documents they know or suspect are relevant. That includes causing or allowing someone else to do so.
Its guidance also says relevant material is wider than a single contract file: background records connected to the subject of an investigation can matter. Where a business knows or suspects an investigation is under way, the CMA expects it to stop routine deletion of relevant records. That can include email, messages and information on work devices as well as paper files. What is relevant will depend on the particular investigation.
Penalty limits have changed since the December 2024 inspection. The CMA says that, for failures under its newer powers from January 2025, a business may face a fixed penalty of up to 1% of turnover, daily penalties of up to 5% of daily turnover, or both. The older, lower business maximum applied to this incident because it happened before that change. The maximum penalties for individuals did not change.
A practical records and response check
Contractors that tender for public or private work can use the case to check how their teams would respond to an unexpected regulatory visit. The useful preparations are simple:
- Give staff a clear first contact. Decide who should meet officials, notify a director and contact a legal adviser. The CMA’s investigation guidance says the person in charge should, where possible, nominate a point of contact for officers during an inspection. It also says an occupier may ask for a legal adviser to be present.
- Know where business records live. Keep a sensible inventory of work phones, shared drives, tender files and paper records, with someone able to explain the system. Do not move or delete material in response to an investigation without taking appropriate advice.
- Pause routine deletion where required. If the business knows or suspects a Competition Act investigation, identify material that may be relevant and preserve it, including automated deletion settings. Ask an adviser about the scope if it is unclear.
- Train people who handle bids and records. An office manager, estimator or administrator may receive the first request. They should know to keep records intact and escalate promptly, rather than improvise or try to tidy up.
These steps do not imply that a firm is likely to be investigated. They are a sensible way to avoid turning an already difficult situation into a separate compliance failure. If officials arrive or the CMA makes a formal request, use the documents they provide and obtain advice on the particular powers and deadlines involved.
