During a warranted inspection of M&J Group's business premises, the Competition and Markets Authority says Estimating Director Barry Pirrie instructed Office Manager Tracey Woods to remove a work mobile phone and paperwork from the premises so that CMA investigators would not find them.

The CMA also found that Pirrie falsely told investigators that he did not have a work mobile telephone.

The CMA said Pirrie instructed Woods to remove a work phone and paperwork so that investigators would not find them.

The Inspection

In December 2024, the CMA conducted a warranted inspection of M&J Group's premises in Bedford. A "dawn raid" is the industry term for such an inspection, carried out under a court warrant that gives investigators the power to enter premises, require the production of documents, and copy or take possession of relevant material.

According to the CMA's findings, during the inspection a work mobile phone and paperwork were removed from the premises. The regulator concluded that Barry Pirrie instructed Tracey Woods to remove those items so that investigators would not find them.

The False Statement

The CMA found that Pirrie told its officers that he did not have a work mobile phone. The regulator concluded that this statement was false. This finding forms a central part of the penalty decision issued against Pirrie personally.

Read the detailed page on the false statement →

The Return of the Items

The phone and paperwork were returned later the same day. The CMA nevertheless said that temporary concealment risked the loss of relevant information and wasted investigative time and resources.

The CMA said temporary concealment risked the loss of relevant information and wasted investigative time and resources.

The Penalties

On 17 September 2026, the CMA issued final administrative penalty decisions:

• M&J Group — £25,000 for failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with investigatory requirements.
• Barry Pirrie — £20,000.
• Tracey Woods — £5,000.

The combined value of the penalties is £50,000. Read the penalty breakdown →

What This Is — and What It Is Not

These penalties concern failures to comply with CMA investigative requirements during an inspection. They are not findings of bid-rigging. The separate CMA investigation into suspected anti-competitive conduct in the supply of roofing and other construction services remains open, and the CMA has expressly stated that no assumption should be made that competition law has been infringed.

Read about the ongoing bid-rigging investigation →