Planning Watch UK Rotating Header Image

April, 2008:

OFT issues statement of objections against 112 construction companies alleged to have engaged in bid rigging activities

Following one of the largest ever Competition Act investigations, the OFT has today issued a Statement of Objections (SO) against 112 firms in the construction sector in England.

The OFT formally alleges that the construction companies named in the SO have engaged in bid rigging activities, and in particular cover pricing. Cover pricing describes a situation where one or more bidders collude with a competitor during a tender process to obtain a price or prices which are intended to be too high to win the contract. The tendering authority, for example a local council or other customer, is not made aware of the contacts between bidders, leaving it with a false impression of the level of competition and this may result in it paying inflated prices.

Cover pricing arrangements have previously been found by the OFT and the Competition Appeal Tribunal to be illegal and in breach of the Competition Act 1998 due to the restrictions on competition that arise. 

In addition, the SO formally alleges that a minority of the construction companies have variously entered into one or more arrangements whereby it was agreed that the successful tenderer would pay an agreed sum of money to the unsuccessful tenderer (known as a ‘compensation payment’). These more serious forms of bid rigging are usually facilitated by false invoices. 

The construction companies under investigation carry out general building work including construction of housing, as well as commercial and industrial construction both in the public and private sector. The SO allegations cover a diverse range of projects, including tenders for schools, universities and hospitals.

The OFT’s investigation originated from a specific complaint in the East Midlands in 2004, but it quickly became clear from the evidence that the practice of cover pricing was widespread. The SO’s formal allegations therefore cover neighbouring areas including Yorkshire and Humberside and also elsewhere in England. The OFT has also received evidence of cover pricing implicating many more companies on thousands of tender processes, but has focused its investigation on approximately 240 alleged infringements which are being pursued in the SO.

During the course of the investigation, the OFT carried out site visits at the premises of 57 firms. The OFT received 37 leniency applications in the investigation leading to this SO, and all other parties received an offer of a reduced financial penalty (see press notices 49/07 and 50/07), which led to over 40 further companies subsequently admitting participation in some bid rigging activities.

No assumption should be made at this stage that there has been an infringement of competition law by any of the companies named in the SO. The 112 parties concerned now have the opportunity to make written and oral representations which the OFT will take into account before making a final decision as to whether competition law has been infringed, and as to the appropriate amount of any penalties the OFT may decide to impose on each of the firms concerned.

John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive, said:

‘Cartel activity of the type alleged today harms the economy by distorting competition and keeping prices artificially high. This investigation, together with the OFT’s previous decisions in the roofing sector, will hopefully send out a strong message to the construction industry about the seriousness with which we view suspected anti-competitive behaviour. Businesses have no excuses for not knowing and abiding by the law.’

NOTES

1. Under the Competition Act 1998 and Article 81 of the EC Treaty, cartels are prohibited. Any business found to be a member of a cartel could be fined up to 10 per cent of its worldwide turnover. In calculating financial penalties, the OFT takes into account a number of factors including seriousness of the infringement(s), turnover in the relevant market and any mitigating and/or aggravating factors. The basis of the OFT’s considerations are set out in the OFT’s guidance as to the appropriate amount of a penalty (pdf 145 kb).

2. An SO gives notice of a proposed infringement decision under the Competition Act 1998 to the parties involved. The parties then have the opportunity to make written and oral representations in response to the case set out by the OFT. Such representations will be considered by the OFT before any final decision is made.

3. The SO will not be published. In accordance with the OFT’s guidance on Involving third parties in Competition Act investigations (pdf 289 kb), any person who wishes to comment on the OFT’s provisional findings, and who is in a position to materially assist the OFT in testing its factual, legal or economic arguments, may request a non-confidential version of the statement of objections by contacting the OFT no later than 30 April 2008.

4. The OFT has previously found infringements of the Competition Act in relation to cover pricing and other bid rigging infringements in the roofing sector in five decisions between 2004 and 2006 (see press notices 46/04, 48/05, 126/05 and 34/06). Appeals of the first and last of these decisions to the Competition Appeal Tribunal confirmed the illegality of cover pricing (see press notices 36/05 and 32/07).

5. The OFT has also today published an information note to local authorities and other procuring entities on the implications for them of this announcement. Download the information note (pdf 49 kb).

6. Under the OFT’s leniency policy an undertaking may be granted immunity from penalties or a significant reduction in penalty in return for reporting certain categories of Competition Act infringement and assisting the OFT with its investigation.

7. Anyone who has information about cartels is asked to call the cartels hotline on 0800 085 1664 or email cartelshotline@oft.gsi.gov.uk. The OFT has a policy under which it will pay financial incentives of up to £100,000 in return for information which helps it to identify and take action against illegal cartels. Rewards will be paid only where information is accurate, verifiable and proves to be useful in the OFT’s anti-cartel enforcement work, and will be calculated according to a set formula and not subject to negotiation.

8. The SO has been issued to the following undertakings:

1. A. H. Willis & Sons Limited
2. ARG (Mansfield) Limited
3. Ackroyd & Abbott Limited together with its subsidiary Ackroyd & Abbott Construction Limited
4. Adam Eastwood & Sons Limited together with its controlling party the Sir John Eastwood Foundation
5. Admiral Construction Limited together with (for alleged infringements from 31 October 2003) its ultimate parent company A C Holdings Limited
6. Adonis Construction Limited
7. Allenbuild Limited and Bullock Construction Limited together with their ultimate parent company Renew Holdings plc
8. Apollo Property Services Group Limited formerly known as Apollo London Limited together with its former ultimate parent company Apollo Holdco Limited formerly known as Apollo Group Holdings Limited
9. Arthur M. Griffiths & Sons Limited
10. B & A Construction (Leicester) Limited
11. Baggaley & Jenkins Limited
12. Balfour Beatty Construction Limited, Balfour Beatty Refurbishment Limited, and Balfour Beatty Group Limited (for alleged infringements from 2000 onwards) and Mansell Construction Services Limited (for alleged infringements from 19 December 2003), together with their current ultimate parent company Balfour Beatty plc. For alleged infringements involving Mansell prior to 19 December 2003, Mansell and its former ultimate parent company Mansell plc
13.Ballast Nedam N.V. as the ultimate parent company of its dissolved subsidiary Ballast plc
14.Beaufort Construction (S-in-A) Limited together with its ultimate parent company Beaufort Holdings U.K. Limited
15.Bodill & Sons (Contractors) Limited
16.Bowmer & Kirkland Limited together with its subsidiaries B & K Building Services Limited and B & K Property Services Limited
17.Bramall Construction Limited and Frank Haslam Milan & Company Limited together with their current ultimate parent company Keepmoat Limited, formerly known as Keepmoat plc
18.C. J. Ellmore & Company Limited
19.Caddick Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Caddick Group plc
20.Carillion JM Limited
21.Chase Norton Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Chase Midland plc
22.Clegg Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Clegg Group Limited formerly known as D E Clegg Holdings Limited
23.Connaught Partnerships Limited together with its ultimate parent company Connaught plc
24.Crown Point Maintenance Group Limited as the ultimate parent company of its dissolved subsidiary Greenwood Building Contractors (Mansfield) Limited, for Greenwood’s alleged infringements after 11 June 2002
25.Davlyn Construction Limited
26.Derwent Valley Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Chevin Holdings Limited
27.Dukeries Building Company Limited together with its ultimate parent company Gavco 159 Limited
28.Durkan Pudelek Limited together with its ultimate parent company Durkan Holdings Limited
29.E. G. Carter & Company Limited
30.E. Manton Limited
31.E. Taylor & Sons (Southwell) Limited, trading as Carmalor Construction
32.F. Parkinson Limited together with its ultimate parent company Mowbray Holdings Limited
33.Francis Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Barrett Estates Services Limited
34.Frank Galliers Limited together with its former ultimate parent company Frank Galliers Holdings Limited
35.Frudd Construction Limited
36.GAJ Construction Limited together with its current ultimate parent company GAJ (Holdings) Limited
37.G Carter Construction Limited
38.G. F. Tomlinson Building Limited together with its ultimate parent company G. F. Tomlinson Group Limited
39.G G Middleton and Sons Limited
40.G. & J. Seddon Limited together with its ultimate parent company Seddon Group Limited
41.GMI Construction Group plc together with (for alleged infringements after 6 February 2005) its current ultimate parent company GMI Construction Holdings plc
42.Geo Houlton & Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company Geo Houlton & Sons (Holdings) Limited
43.George Law Limited together with its ultimate parent company Bosworth & Wakeford Limited
44.Greswolde Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Mantisson Limited
45.Hall Construction Group Limited
46.Harlow & Milner Limited
47.Harold Adkin & Sons (Sutton-In-Ashfield) Limited
48.Harper Group Construction Limited and J. Harper & Sons (Leominster) Limited together with their ultimate parent company Harper Group plc
49.Haymills (Contractors) Limited together with (for alleged infringements prior to 26 May 2004) its former ultimate parent company Corringway Conclusions plc and (for alleged infringements after 26 May 2004) its current ultimate parent company Haymills Group Limited
50.Henry Boot Construction (UK) Limited together with its ultimate parent company Henry Boot plc
51.Herbert Baggaley Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Baggaley Group Limited
52.Hill Bros. (Nottingham) Limited
53.Hobson & Porter Limited
54.Holroyd Construction Limited together with (for alleged infringements prior to 30 March 2005) its former ultimate parent company Holderness Investments Limited and (for alleged infringements after 30 March 2005) its current ultimate parent company Holroyd Construction Group Limited
55.Interclass Public Limited Company together with its ultimate parent company Interclass Holdings Limited
56.Interserve Project Services Limited together with its ultimate parent company Interserve plc
57.Irwins Limited and Jack Lunn (Construction) Limited together with their ultimate parent company Jack Lunn (Holdings) Limited
58.J. Guest Limited
59.J H Hallam (Contracts) Limited together with its ultimate parent company J H Hallam (R & J) Limited
60.J. J. & A. R. Jackson Limited
61.J. J. McGinley Limited, together with its former ultimate parent company McGinley Holdings Limited
62.John Cawley Limited
63.John Sisk & Son Limited together with its ultimate parent company Sicon Limited
64.K. J. Bryan (Builders) Limited
65.Kier Regional Limited together with its ultimate parent company Kier Group plc
66.Lemmeleg Limited together with its ultimate parent company Rok plc
67.Lindum Construction Co. Limited and Lindum Homes Limited together with their ultimate parent company Lindum Group Limited
68.Linford Group Limited together with its ultimate parent company F. & E. V. Linford Limited
69.Loach Construction & Development Limited
70.Lotus Construction Limited
71.Milward Construction (Belper) Limited
72.Morgan Ashurt plc formerly known as Bluestone Plc together with its ultimate parent company Morgan Sindall plc
73.North Midland Construction plc
74.P D H Developments Limited (formerly trading as G. Hurst & Sons (Contractors) Limited) together with its ultimate parent company G. Hurst & Sons Limited
75.P. Casey & Co. Limited together with its current ultimate parent company The Casey Group Limited
76.P. Waller Limited
77.Pearce Construction (Midlands) Limited together with its former ultimate parent company Crest Nicholson plc
78.Peter Baines Limited
79.Phoenix Contracts (Leicester) Limited
80.Piper Construction Midlands Limited together with its ultimate parent company Piper Securities Holdings Limited
81.Propencity Group Limited together with its wholly owned subsidiary companies, ISG Jackson Limited, ISG Regions Limited formerly known as ISG Totty Limited, ISG Totty Building Limited and Propencity Limited
82.Quarmby Construction Company Limited together with its ultimate parent company St James Securities Holdings Limited
83.Quarmby Construction (Special Projects) Limited together with its ultimate parent company Justgrade Limited
84.R Durtnell & Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company R Durtnell & Sons (Holdings) Limited
85.R. G. Carter Limited, R. G. Carter Building Limited and R. G. Carter Construction Limited together with their current ultimate parent company R. G. Carter Holdings Limited
86.Richardson Projects Limited
87.Robert Bruce Construction Limited
88.Robert Woodhead Limited together with its ultimate parent company Robert Woodhead Holdings Limited
89.Robinson & Sawdon Limited
90.Shaylor Construction Limited
91.Simons Construction Limited and Wrights Construction (Lincoln) Limited together with their ultimate parent company Simons Group Limited
92.Sol Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Barkbury Limited
93.Speller-Metcalfe Limited
94.Spicers (Builders) Limited
95.Stainforth Construction Limited
96.Strata Construction Limited (formerly trading as Weaver)
97.T. & C. Williams (Builders) Limited
98.T. Denman & Sons (Melton Mowbray) Limited
99.Thomas Fish & Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company Fish Holdings Limited
100.Thomas Long & Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company Radford Holdings Limited
101.Thomas Vale Construction Plc together with its ultimate parent company Thomas Vale Holdings Limited
102.Thorndyke Limited
103.Try Accord Limited and Galliford Try Construction Limited together with their ultimate parent company Galliford Try plc
104.W. R. Bloodworth & Sons Limited
105.Wiggett Bros & Co Limited
106.Wildgoose Construction Limited
107.William Sapcote and Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company Sapcote Holdings Limited
108.William Woodsend Limited
109.Willmott Dixon Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Willmott Dixon Limited
110.Wright (Hull) Limited together with its ultimate parent company T. Wright & Son (Holdings) Limited
111.Wygar Construction Co Limited together with its ultimate parent company Wygar (Holdings) Limited
112.York House Construction Limited

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Audit Scotland Auditors to probe Highland Housing Fair payout

Watchdog to assess council input
Press and Journal – Published: 02/04/2008

AUDITORS are to investigate the use of public money to establish the controversial Highland Housing Fair planned for former greenbelt at Balvonie Braes on the south side of Inverness.

The accounting watchdog Audit Scotland has asked the local auditor to assess Highland Council’s contribution to starting up the not-for-profit development company the Highland Housing Alliance (HHA), which is now deemed a private operation despite substantial funding from the public purse to establish an expo at which a fundamentally private housing development will be exhibited.

Prompted by public concern, including that of various Inverness councillors, SNP MSP Dave Thompson wrote to Audit Scotland requesting an investigation into the sale of land by construction giant Tulloch to the HHA.

Audit Scotland has said it is unable to audit the HHA because it is “not within its remit”. But it is able to instigate an audit of the council, which part-funded the project.

Mr Thompson told the Press and Journal: “I support the fair and wish it well, but I am pleased that my concerns over the land transactions have been taken seriously.

“Audit Scotland has contacted the council’s external auditors so that they are aware of our concerns, and they have been asked to establish the background and to assess whether there are any issues arising from the council’s involvement which require further investigation.

“Of course, the auditors will not consider planning-related matters and those issues reportedly under consideration by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO). But I very much look forward to hearing the outcome of their investigations."

A spokeswoman for Audit Scotland said: “An audit of HHA is not within our remit. However, we do audit Highland Council and have an interest in the council’s arrangements for monitoring how its money is used to support other organisations.

“With this in mind, in line with our routine procedures the correspondence has recently been passed to the council’s external auditors and they will seek to establish the background and assess whether there are any issues arising from the council’s involvement which require further investigation.”

She added: “The correspondence that we received refers to planning concerns and to consideration of issues by the SPSO. We have advised Mr Thompson that the auditors will not consider planning related matters and those issues reportedly under consideration by the SPSO.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Tulloch Homes Land deal bonanza sparks outrage

TAXPAYERS handed an Inverness building firm a substantial profit when land on the outskirts of the city was sold to the organisers of next year’s Highland Housing Fair.

By Helen Paterson – Inverness Courier -Published: 22 January, 2008

It has emerged that Tulloch Homes purchased around 40 acres of agricultural land at Balvonie Braes for £850,000 and sold it — plus one extra acre — nine months later to the council-funded Highland Housing Alliance (HHA) for £1,350,000.

The developer was registered as the new owner of the land on 16th November 2006, two days after HHA lodged a planning application for the site on the southern edge of Inverness. It was transferred to HHA on 8th August, 2007.

The fair takes place in August 2009 and will showcase the best in housing design, innovation and technology. It has been dogged by controversy and the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman (SPSO) is currently investigating the conduct of Highland Council planning officials after an e-mail obtained by The Inverness Courier suggested they made up their minds about the planning application prior to the start of a public consultation exercise.

Now campaigners are calling for a full investigation.

"The whole affair is a public disgrace with no thought to the affect to the local community and, at the very least, the matter should be the subject of a full public inquiry," said Barrie Haycock, chairman of Planning Watch UK.

"Highland Council has driven a train through their own Local Plan and we have the unacceptable situation that Tulloch Homes has banked £500,000, as a direct consequence of the actions of the various factions involved."

The fair, the first of its kind in the UK, was due to take place in Smithon but the site was judged too small. More than 30 sites were then considered by HHA and developers approached before the site at Balvonie was chosen.

Although the land is designated as "green wedge", there was an indication made by the Reporter at the Inverness Local Plan Public Inquiry in 2004 that this could change in the future.

According to Susan Torrance, the alliance’s chief executive, Tulloch Homes started negotiations with the former land owner Derek Munro more than three years ago.

"I appreciate what it looks like, but it was not a matter of Tulloch making a quick buck," she said. "They had acquired the land and intended to hold onto it as long as it took to get it into the Local Plan. That is why they paid the money they did for it.

"This site was suggested to us by Tulloch very late on."

She said it would have been too risky for HHA to try and buy the land without planning permission, which was a condition of the sale. Developers were also unwilling to sell land zoned for housing, which she claimed would have cost the HHA between £4 million and £6 million.

Planning Watch UK chairman Barrie Haycock at the site of the Highland Housing Fair. Bobby Nelson

The price paid by HHA covers the 40-acre site as well as rights to services and an additional one acre, which will provide access. HHA will also contribute towards a new road linking Milton of Leys with the Inshes area.

"If I hand on heart thought we could have got a better deal for the site, I would have done that," Ms Torrance said. "It was the only option available to us."

A Tulloch spokesman stressed that missives of sale for the land were agreed long before HHA expressed an interest in the site, which the company had viewed as a long-term acquisition.

"Highland Council approached us the following year asking us to sell the site to them and after discussion we agreed to do so to assist them in their initiative," the spokesman explained. "The council simply could not have acquired housing land elsewhere so cheaply. The council received a real bargain and when the fair is complete the value will be several times more than the council paid for it."

But Tory MSP Mary Scanlon, who represents the Highlands and Islands, thinks the profit made by Tulloch Homes was "excessive" given the desperate need for cash elsewhere.

"Given that Highland Council has a debt of over £500 million, the profit within nine months for the housing fair land certainly does seem excessive. The payment for this land will simply add to the current debt, which is a burden on every council tax payer," she said.

The Highland Housing Alliance was set up in 2005 as a not-for-profit organisation to build more affordable and private homes. It is financed by the landbank fund, which is made up of monies from Highland Council and Communities Scotland.

One hundred homes will be built as part of the council-backed project, which will involve a month-long exhibition. It is expected to attract 30,000 visitors.

Timetable of events

14th November 2006: Highland Housing Alliance applies for planning permission for the site at Balvonie Braes.
16th November 2006: Tulloch Homes is registered as the new owner of the land, for which it paid £850,000.
21st November 2006: An e-mail written by Nicola Drummond, a planning department team leader with Highland Council, is sent to Colin MacKenzie, principal planner in the council’s planning and development service, saying the application, although contrary to the Local Plan, would "obviously" be approved.
30th January 2007: Planning permission is granted.
8th August 2007: Highland Housing Alliance is registered as the new owner of the land, having bought it for £1.35 million.

h.paterson@inverness-courier.co.uk

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr