Felt and single ply flat-roofing contracts in the North East of England

No. CA98/02/2005

8 April 2005

The OFT has concluded that seven roofing contractors (the Parties) colluded in relation to the making of tender bids in felt and single ply flat roofing contracts in the North East of England thereby infringing the Chapter I prohibition contained in section 2(1) of the Competition Act 1998.

The Parties were involved in individual agreements and/or concerted practices each of which had as its object the fixing of prices, and in some cases sharing markets, in the market for the supply of installation, repair, maintenance and improvement services for felt and single ply flat roof coverings in the North East of England. When a purchaser wished to purchase such services for a flat roof, it typically invited a number of suitably qualified roofing contractors to submit tender bids detailing the price at which they could undertake the work specified in order to have competition for the individual contract between contractors and obtain a competitive price. The Parties' co-operation and co-ordination with each other in relation to the setting of tender prices and, in some cases, allocating contracts to particular Parties, had the object of preventing, restricting or distorting this competition. Different Parties were involved in different numbers of infringements. Certain infringements relate to collusion on individual contracts, whereas others relate to collusion on a number of contracts for a single customer.

The OFT considers that agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings that fix prices or share markets by way of collusive tendering or otherwise are among the most serious infringements of the Act. Financial penalties have therefore been imposed on six Parties, subject to the operation of the policy to give lenient treatment for undertakings coming forward with information in cartel cases. In line with this policy Briggs Roofing and Cladding Limited has been granted 100 per cent leniency. In addition, Mitrepoint Limited (trading as Roofclad) has been granted a reduction of fines by 50 per cent and Hylton Roofing Limited by 35 per cent. No financial penalty can be imposed on one further Party, Single Ply Roofing Systems Limited, as it had no turnover in the year prior to this Decision (2004), having previously become subject to an administration order. The list below sets out the penalty for each Party, with figures in brackets indicating penalty after leniency

Briggs - £88,956 (£nil)
Dufell - £74,624
Hodgson & Allon - £74,151
Hylton - £73,385 (£47,700)
Kelsey - £262,000
Roofclad - £25,107 (£12,554)
Single Ply - £nil

Back to top