A class action lawsuit targeting seven of Britain’s biggest housebuilders could seek up to £4.5 billion in compensation for affected homebuyers across Great Britain.
Mark McLaren, a former parliamentary and legal affairs manager at consumer group Which?, is leading the legal action against Barratt Redrow (BTRW.L), Bellway (BWY.L), The Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon (PSN.L), Taylor Wimpey (TW.L), and Vistry Group (VTY.L) and its Countryside Partnerships division.
The claim alleges that consumers paid inflated prices for new-build properties due to alleged anti-competitive behaviour among the major housebuilders.
More than 700,000 people who bought new-build homes in Great Britain between October 2015 and June 24, 2026 are covered by the proposed action.
The case is now heading to the Competition Appeal Tribunal to seek formal approval before proceeding to a full hearing.
The lawsuit follows an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority into whether the housebuilders unlawfully shared commercially sensitive information for a two-year period ending in February 2024.
The CMA dropped further action after the firms agreed to pay £100 million into affordable housing programmes and made binding commitments not to share sensitive commercial information with each other.
McLaren, represented by competition law firms Geradin Partners and Hausfeld as co-counsel, estimates each affected homeowner could be entitled to between £3,100 and £6,200 in compensation.
McLaren said: “Buying a home is one of the biggest financial commitments most of us will make. If, as seems to be the case, housebuilders shared sensitive pricing and sales information with one another instead of competing properly, homeowners across Great Britain may well have been left out of pocket as a result.”
He added that the claim is “about standing up for those buyers and ensuring that compensation is delivered to those who deserve it.”
Scott Campbell, a partner at Hausfeld, argued that individual legal action is beyond the reach of most homeowners given the cost and complexity involved.
Campbell said: “That’s why this collective action is so important. It provides a practical route for hundreds of thousands of consumers to seek compensation where they may otherwise have had no way of doing so.”
The CMA previously noted signs that the builders had exchanged details about sales including pricing, the number of property viewings, and incentives offered to buyers such as upgraded kitchens or stamp duty contributions.
Because the firms reached an agreement with the regulator, the CMA did not issue a formal ruling on whether competition law had actually been broken.
The total compensation sought ranges between £2.2 billion and £4.5 billion depending on the final number of eligible claimants and the level of overcharge proven in court.
