INVESTIGATION

---

---

FOREIGN DIMENSIONS

Our British bus operators have significant footprints in North America, where their former subsidiaries Coach USA and Coach Canada, along with the Megabus services radiating from Chicago and New York, faced identical duty-of-care and safety obligations that underpin our negligence and occupiers’-liability claims. Stagecoach’s North American operations—which were sold to Variant Equity Advisors in 2019—include charter, sightseeing and yellow-school-bus services throughout the northeastern United States and Ontario and Quebec in Canada, making the United States and Canada jurisdictions where identical infrastructure-design torts could have arisen from “floating” or inaccessible stop configurations (en.wikipedia.org)(cptdb.ca).

Across Europe, Arriva’s network—formerly a Deutsche Bahn subsidiary—operates bus, coach, tram and rail services in at least ten countries, including the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Poland, Italy, Spain and Hungary. Each of these national subsidiaries is contractually bound to local transport authorities under framework concession agreements that mirror the UK-style design-and-build and service-level obligations now in dispute, creating potential co-liability for unsafe bus-stop installations in those jurisdictions (en.wikipedia.org).

Our social-housing and estate-management defendants have also engaged global property-management and construction multinationals. In the real-estate sector, American firms such as CBRE Group and Jones Lang LaSalle administer large UK residential portfolios under multi-year management contracts, while specialists in structural repairs and major works—Swedish Skanska AB, Spanish Ferrovial and German Hochtief—have delivered both domestic-block refurbishments and public-infrastructure projects. Those international contractors and service-providers, having acted under the same opaque billing and statutory-duty regimes, may be necessary collaborators or joint tortfeasors in cross-border claims for misfeasance and breach of statutory duty.

In the utilities and energy-transition space, global suppliers of electric-vehicle charging infrastructure—ChargePoint (USA), Shell Recharge Solutions (Netherlands) and BP Pulse (UK, part of a global energy group)—are counterparties to local authorities’ concession agreements, meaning flawed cost-benefit assessments or equality-duty oversights in their rollout contracts could give rise to parallel claims in multiple European and North American jurisdictions. Collectively, these countries and foreign companies represent both additional plaintiff classes—residents, commuters and consumers harmed abroad—and potential defendants whose cross-border contracts form the backbone of our multi-jurisdictional tort and contract enforcement strategy.

---

FOIS

Summary of Formal Infringement Findings

Our search uncovered a series of definitive infringement findings and regulatory judgments that directly parallel the causes of action in our case. The Competition and Markets Authority has repeatedly sanctioned estate agents for collusive fee arrangements, ranging from local advertising restrictions to minimum‐commission cartels, and has issued landmark rulings on wide parity clauses in insurance comparison contracts. Several of these CMA decisions have been refined or overturned on appeal, illustrating the legal contours of competition infringements and the thresholds for follow-on damages claims. At the same time, the Housing Ombudsman’s special investigation reports into Hackney Council, Hyde Housing Association and Lewisham Council document systemic failures in repairs, damp and mould remediation, complaints handling and service-charge transparency, culminating in binding remedial orders and resident compensation awards. These formal regulator and tribunal findings provide us with ready-made evidence of actionable breaches across tort, contract and competition law.

Competition Authority Infringement Findings

The CMA’s 2015 investigation into local estate and lettings agents found a Chapter I infringement for agreements to restrict the advertising of fees in regional newspapers, triggering warning letters and compliance work across the sector (gov.uk). In March 2018, the CMA imposed fines totalling £605,519 on four estate agents in Berkshire for concerted practices to fix minimum commission levels for traditional residential sales services (gov.uk). The full non-confidential infringement decision for the Burnham-on-Sea cartel provides granular legal and economic analysis of market definition, geographic scope and penalty calculations (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk). Beyond real estate, on 19 November 2020 the CMA fined a leading price-comparison website £17.9 million for implementing so-called “wide” most-favoured-nation clauses in its contracts with 32 home-insurance providers, a decision later set aside by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in August 2022 (ashurst.com, hsfkramer.com). The Court of Appeal’s 2020 ruling in the unfair-pricing “phenytoin” case further demonstrates judicial scrutiny of the CMA’s pricing tests, underscoring the evidentiary thresholds for proving anti-competitive conduct (cliffordchance.com).

Housing Ombudsman Special Investigation Findings

In May 2025 the Housing Ombudsman published a special investigation report into Hackney Council that identified repeated failings in risk assessment, information management, and response to vulnerable residents, together with systemic weaknesses in repairs and complaint-handling processes (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). A case decision on Lewisham Council found that protracted delays in addressing damp and mould complaints breached the landlord’s own policy and caused material distress, leading to four formal findings of severe maladministration and £40,000 awarded in compensation to affected tenants (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The Ombudsman’s December 2024 report into Hyde Housing Association likewise uncovered repeated failures in repairs, communication and service-charge enquiries, establishing a pattern of systemic neglect that underpins collective restitution claims (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). Coverage in Inside Housing and local government press corroborates these formal findings and highlights the regulatory imperative for redress (insidehousing.co.uk)

---

COAS

A comprehensive review of our findings reveals a broad spectrum of tort and contract claims that may be available against both public authorities and private-sector actors. In tort, claims span negligence, nuisance, breach of statutory duty, misfeasance in public office, public-law misfeasance, product liability, occupiers’ liability, economic torts, and breach of human rights obligations. Contractual causes of action include breach of express terms, breach of implied terms, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, restitution on failure of basis, and repudiatory breach giving rise to rescission and damages. Public-sector defendants may also face ultra vires challenges and breaches of procedural fairness under judicial review. Each cause of action rests on commonalities of harm—whether systemic disrepair, excessive service charges, unsafe infrastructure, or anti-competitive arrangements—and offers viable strategies for media campaigning, unsolicited proposals to authorities and corporates, and mediation toward collective redress.

Tortious Causes of Action

Victims of pervasive building disrepair and mould infestation can bring negligence claims against landlords and managing agents under the duty of care test from Caparo v Dickman, requiring foreseeability, proximity and that it be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant (biicl.org). The tort of nuisance offers relief where cumulative defects interfere with tenants’ enjoyment of property, obliging defendants to abate the nuisance and compensate for damage to health and possessions (en.wikipedia.org). Breach of statutory duty arises where public bodies fail to comply with health and safety regulations under the Housing Act or the Health and Safety at Work Act, and such breach can be relied upon as evidence of negligence (en.wikipedia.org). Misfeasance in public office is available when a council or transport authority knowingly exceeds its powers or acts maliciously in approving unsafe “floating” bus stops, giving rise to aggravated and exemplary damages (biicl.org). The tort of public-law misfeasance permits claims for positive acts by regulators that exacerbate harm, distinguishing those from mere omissions that attract immunity (biicl.org). Occupiers’ liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 may be invoked by pedestrians or cyclists injured at poorly designed transport infrastructure, requiring occupiers to ensure premises are reasonably safe (en.wikipedia.org). Economic torts such as inducing breach of contract or causing loss by unlawful means can be asserted against competitors or service providers who unlawfully conspire to inflate service charges or restrict repair services (uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com). Finally, violations of the Human Rights Act—particularly breaches of the right to respect for private and family life—may give rise to damages when public bodies’ regulatory failures imperil tenants’ health and well-being (biicl.org).

Contractual Causes of Action

Leaseholders overcharged for non-itemised service charges can pursue breach of express contractual terms requiring transparency and reasonableness under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, seeking damages or declarations of unlawfulness (hoganlovells.com). Implied terms of fitness for purpose and reasonable care in service-provision agreements allow tenants to claim for substandard maintenance works that contravene statutory and common-law expectations (research-information.bris.ac.uk). Misrepresentation—whether negligent or fraudulent—may be pleaded where managing agents or developers provided false assurances about the scope or cost of communal repairs, entitling claimants to rescission or damages (pumpcourtchambers.com). Unjust enrichment and restitutionary claims arise when landlords or agents retain service-charge payments without performing the contracted works, permitting recovery of sums paid (hallellis.co.uk). Contracts with exclusive supply or non-compete obligations may be void under competition law and the Block Exemption Regulations if they impose vertical restraints beyond permissible durations, enabling claimants to resist enforcement (uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com). Where a contracting public authority has acted ultra vires—lacking express statutory power to delegate maintenance functions for multiple years—those agreements are void for want of authority and may be quashed (biicl.org). Repudiatory breaches enabling termination and damages include failure to execute major-works programmes under estate-management frameworks and refusal to rectify dangerous transport facilities (hoganlovells.com).

Public-Law and Regulatory Remedies

Beyond private-law obligations, public-sector actors can be challenged through judicial review on grounds of ultra vires conduct, procedural unfairness, failure to meet the Public Sector Equality Duty, irrationality, and failure to consult properly (biicl.org). Quashing orders can invalidate unlawful infrastructure agreements, prompting authorities to renegotiate under lawful and transparent terms (biicl.org). Injunctions and mandatory orders compel corrective action, making judicial review a powerful adjunct to collective tort and contract claims.

Strategic Integration

By pursuing overlapping causes of action—negligence and statutory breach against landlords and transport authorities, misfeasance and human-rights claims against regulators, contract and restitution claims against managing agents, and competition-law invalidity for anti-competitive agreements—we create a multi-front approach that reinforces our media campaign narrative, underpins our unsolicited proposals with rigorous legal foundations, and strengthens our position in mediation by demonstrating clear exposure to judicial and regulatory risk.

---

From the analysis of “Tort Claims Against UK Regulators” I drew out the precise conditions under which a public authority can be sued in tort, focusing on the misfeasance-in-public-office doctrine and breach-of-statutory-duty claims. These elements give us the scaffolding to allege that regulators or councils acted positively to cause harm rather than merely failed to act, which is critical both for the narrative of our media campaign and for framing allegations in mediation.

In reviewing “wpi.examples.I” I identified the range of real-world judicial reviews brought on environmental and equality grounds—everything from Climate Change Act challenges to disability-access litigation. These concrete case studies furnish us with tried-and-tested grounds, standing strategies and procedural timetables that we can adapt to secure representative standing for our class and to underpin the legal arguments in our unsolicited proposals.

The companion volume, “wpi.examples.II,” yielded detailed examples from emissions-trading and other regulated markets, notably the EnBW challenge to Germany’s allocation plan. These illustrate how economic harm to broad classes of trading participants was successfully quantified and contested, informing both our damage-model for restitution and the messaging for affected investors in our campaign.

From “WPIS\_ S.9 EXEMPTION. CCAS. CRP. GLP ON ENZF” I extracted the Competition and Markets Authority’s four-step efficiency exemption test under section 9, including how sustainability agreements can qualify for leniency when consumer benefits are demonstrable and shared. This gives us a precise standard to test and, if unmet, to expose in our public-body proposals and in mediation as evidence of anti-competitive collusion.

The horizontal restraints guide “CLP horizontal UAS” provided the definitions and thresholds for identifying concerted practices between competitors—how market shares combine, what counts as evidence of coordination and the types of information-exchange that trigger illegality. These benchmarks are the basis for our allegations of cartel-style behavior among landlords or transport operators.

Its counterpart, “CLP vertical UAS,” offered the block-exemption parameters for supply-chain agreements, showing when exclusive-supply, non-compete and resale-price-maintenance clauses fall outside safe harbours. By mapping our defendants’ standard-form contracts onto these parameters, we can pinpoint precisely which clauses to challenge as void or unenforceable in mediation.

“Quashing Orders and Parliamentary Sovereignty” illuminated the limits of judicial review and the circumstances in which administrative decisions can be struck down as ultra vires. These insights sharpen our media campaign’s calls for accountability and inform the legal skeleton of any quashing-order application we might threaten to secure better terms in settlement.

From “clp duopoly strict liability mediaset” I took the exposition of strict-liability doctrines applied to near-duopolies, drawing parallels to our transport market where two or three operators dominate service provision. This strengthens our competition arguments by showing that the law can impose liability without proof of intent in markets on the brink of tacit coordination.

Finally, “WPI. SOUTH AFRICA” unpacked how another common law jurisdiction has grappled with balancing public-interest goals against competition rules, particularly in sectors deemed essential services. These comparative insights allow us to argue persuasively that UK regulators should take the same expansive view of welfare objectives when assessing or enforcing contracts, bolstering both our campaign rhetoric and our legal leverage in mediation.

---

There is a real prospect that several of the collaborative arrangements and standard-form contracts we have uncovered could be susceptible to challenge as unlawful or void. First, any joint‐purchasing or production agreements concluded by private landlord associations or bus operators that fall foul of the Chapter I prohibition on anti-competitive concerted practices will be automatically void for illegality. If those agreements do not satisfy the CMA’s four-step efficiency exemption test—by delivering concrete, indispensable consumer benefits and passing them on fairly without eliminating competition—then they cannot escape voidness. Second, vertical supply or maintenance contracts offering exclusive or selective service rights to particular managing agents or engineering firms may breach the Vertical Block Exemption Order if they impose non-compete obligations exceeding five years or resale-price maintenance clauses. Such clauses would be severable or render the entire contract unenforceable. Third, any framework estate-management agreements entered by councils or transport authorities under powers that do not expressly authorize multi-year delegations of core statutory duties risk being ultra vires. A public authority that contracts away its obligation to inspect or repair communal housing or bus-stop safety without clear enabling legislation is acting beyond its legal competence, and any such contract can be quashed as void for want of statutory authority. Fourth, where standard contract terms impose hidden or unfair service charges on leaseholders, those terms may be voidable under the Consumer Rights Act for creating a significant imbalance and lacking transparency. Finally, any contracting practice that systematically excludes minority-owned SMEs or disadvantaged tenants—in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty or procurement rules requiring open competition—renders those agreements susceptible to Judicial Review and void-for-public-policy challenges. In each instance, the absence of lawful enabling power, the presence of competition-restricting clauses, or the incorporation of unfair terms is sufficient to call the validity of the agreements into serious question.

 

---

PS

Having worked through the technical reports and case‐law briefs you provided, I have catalogued every specific good and service discussed in those attachments. Although the materials themselves are general competition‐law treatises and merger‐simulation protocols, they illustrate the kinds of products, end markets and service offerings that mirror the commercial ecosystems in which our defendants operate. By analogy, we can then map from those examples to our own case—to pinpoint exactly which product lines, service contracts and consumer‐user groups we must target when identifying competitors, class members and affected consumers.

From the merger‐simulation and merger‐review studies we extracted fifteen discrete product categories and service lines:

• Wood pulp and related packaging boards, as sold in bulk to paper manufacturers and food‐and‐beverage packagers;
• Liquid packaging board used specifically for milk and juice cartons;
• Ready-to-eat breakfast cereals in branded “Kid,” “Family” and “Adult” segments;
• Consumer ales and lagers sold by volume—“premium,” “lite” and “popular” beer brands;
• Toilet tissue and other household paper goods;
• Business-software applications marketed under licence to corporations;
• Fuel-cell stacks and ancillary electric-motor generators for trucks;
• Battery-cell modules and packs sold into automotive assembly plants;
• Aluminium structural sections and bespoke steel-fabricated components for building and infrastructure;
• Electric-vehicle charging stations and the network services that power them;
• Electronic display panels and signage hardware;
• Private-hospital inpatient and outpatient services;
• Non-life insurance policies for corporate and individual risks;
• Scheduled bus and coach services on defined urban and inter-urban routes;
• Passenger-airline seat-and-baggage carriage on fixed flight schedules.

From the competition-law framework papers (Motta’s chapters) we further gleaned the downstream transactional relationships and contract vehicles that bear directly on our causes of action:

• Long-term supply contracts with multi-year price announcements (as in pulp and packaging);
• Framework agreements for multi-year service-charge management and estate maintenance;
• Exclusive-dealing and resale-price-maintenance covenants between manufacturers and distributors;
• Franchise-fee or two-part tariff arrangements with common retail agents;
• Tender-and-award processes for public-sector outsourcing of transport-infrastructure works.

Translating these examples into our case context, the “perpetrators” we must analyse are offering the following core products and services:

– In social housing, bulk letting of residential units under standard tenancy agreements, coupled with contracted estate-management, communal-maintenance and major-works remit. These correspond directly to the “service-charge management” and “framework repair contracts” exemplified by multi-year pulp and packaging board supply.

– In leasehold residences, annual invoicing for water-and-waste, landscaping and building-insurance premiums—mirroring the opaque “bundle” of land-service amenities that required transparency in the utilities and insurance markets.

– In public transport, route-franchised bus and coach operations, operating on fixed-price ticketing and concession-fare structures, deploying “floating bus stops” and passenger-information displays. These echo the fixed-timetable carriage services and hardware-installation contracts seen in the airline-and-coach examples.

– In regulated infrastructure, turnkey highway-construction and civil-engineering works for bus and pedestrian facilities, procured under competitive tender but executed via single-supplier “design-and-build” or “public-private financing” agreements—akin to the steel-and-aluminium fabrication scopes in the building-materials cases.

– In ancillary services, emergency medical response and paid first-aid cover on transport corridors, along with disability-access modifications to stops and stations—comparable to the hospital-and-insurance chains highlighted in the private-healthcare studies.

By isolating these goods and service lines, we now know precisely which NAICS/NACE/SIC buckets to mine for competitor lists and which user cohorts to canvass for class membership. We will therefore pursue contacts in:

• The bulk property-management sector (firms offering end-to-end estate-maintenance packages);
• The facilities-outsourcing market (specialists in cyclical safety inspections and major-works planning);
• The passenger-land-transport franchise market (bus, coach and light-rail operators);
• The civil-engineering/road-contractor market (design-and-build highway suppliers);
• The disability-access-equipment and PRM (passengers with reduced mobility) service providers;
• The insurance-and-re-insurance pools underwriting communal-risk and professional-indemnity for property managers;
• The housing-and-tenant-advice bodies and consumer-ombudsman schemes that represent affected leaseholders.

This granular breakdown of the “products” (rental units, service-charge contracts, bus stops, inspection services) and “services” (maintenance, ticketing, emergency cover, remedial works) will guide our next phase of company discovery—ensuring we identify every horizontal competitor, vertical supplier and downstream consumer group who has suffered the “common” harm of over-charging, disrepair, or unsafe infrastructure.

 

---

CASELEX

The Volvo–Daimler fuel-cell joint venture sits squarely in NACE 27.12 for electric motors and generators, 29.31 for electrical equipment for motor vehicles, 45.40 for wholesale of vehicle parts, 46.69 for other machinery wholesaling, 29.10 for motor-vehicle manufacture and 45.11 for car retail. These codes mirror the upstream green-technology supply chains and downstream heavy-truck markets whose environmental and access-equality impacts our public-law claims must address. In parallel, the Peugeot-Saft battery-cell project, classified under NACE 27.20 (batteries and accumulators), 45.31 (vehicle-parts wholesale), 29.10 and 45.11, underlines the electric-mobility axis of our transport negligence and competition challenges.

Our construction and housing remediation work is framed by NACE 24.42 for aluminium production alongside 41.20 for building construction and 25.11, 25.12 and 25.99 for structural-metal fabrication. Those alignments sharpen our tort claims against unsafe “floating” bus stops—which also draw on 42.11 for road-building—and our contract actions over systemic service-charge inflation, which devolve from 68.20 and 68.32 for real-estate letting and management. By invoking these codes in our media campaign, we expose exactly which segments of the built-environment supply chain have profited from or perpetuated disrepair.

The electric-vehicle charging referral confirms that energy-transition infrastructure falls under 35.14 for electricity trade, 52.21 for transport-support services, 62.02 for IT consultancy, and again 46.69, 29.10 and 45.11. In our unsolicited proposal to regulators and operators, we can cite those codes to demand transparent cost-benefit analyses under the Green Book’s discount-rate rules and the Public Sector Equality Duty’s equality-impact assessments on every segment of EV-charging rollout.

Finally, the healthcare merger decisions in Spain reveal that non-life insurance sits in 65.12 and hospital activities in 86.10, while private-hospital PPP schemes invoke 68.20 for property letting. We will deploy those codes in mediation to show insurers and providers the financial and reputational risks of systemic over-charging or vertical foreclosure, while rallying patient groups under a common industry banner. Across all three projects—media, proposal and mediation—the precision of these NACE and SIC codes lets us target every corporate actor, regulator and civil-society partner in a coordinated sustainability-law offensive.

---

INDUSTRIES, SECTORS, MARKETS

Our analysis identifies for each cause of action the precise economic sectors, markets and industries most directly exposed to loss or negative spill-overs. In the social-housing disrepair context, tenants and landlords operate within the renting and real-estate management spheres, while construction, insurance and healthcare services incur remediation, liability and treatment costs. Leaseholders overcharged for service-charge irregularities touch the same real-estate, property-management and professional-services industries, as well as financial advisers and legal practices. Unsafe transport infrastructure creates risk for passenger-land transport operators, road and civil-engineering contractors, accessibility-equipment suppliers and emergency-service providers. Competition-law breaches implicate all affected markets—real estate, transport, construction and beyond—where price-fixing or exclusionary conduct harms both direct purchasers and ancillary sectors such as retail, logistics and professional advice. Consumer-protection infringements span any market where unfair terms deter switching or inflate costs, including retail, hospitality, utilities and digital platforms. Investor-misstatement claims concern financial-services firms, capital-markets intermediaries and their audit and advisory networks. Below we detail how each sector, keyed to NACE and SIC codes, could suffer direct losses or negative spill-overs, and we offer a qualitative estimate of the probability that affected parties might pursue compensation or join our media campaign.

Social-Housing Disrepair (Negligence and Nuisance)
Tenants and landlords operate under NACE L68.20 (renting and operating of own or leased real estate) and SIC 68209, which encompasses residential lettings and leases (inspire.ec.europa.eu, siccode.co.uk). Managing agents fall under NACE 68.32 and SIC 68320 for real-estate management on a fee or contract basis (inspire.ec.europa.eu, siccode.co.uk). Construction and maintenance contractors, classified in NACE F43.3 (specialised construction activities) and SIC 43390 (other building completion), bear costs for remediation works. Insurers covering property damage and liability costs are in NACE K65.1 and SIC 65120 for non-life insurance. Healthcare providers treating mould-related respiratory conditions fall under NACE Q86.1 and SIC 86100 for hospital activities. Direct losses include repair bills, temporary rehousing and medical expenses; negative spill-overs extend to suppliers of building materials, cleaning services and community-health schemes. Given well-established duty-of-care principles, the probability of tenants and insurers pursuing mediated settlements or legal claims is high.

Service-Charge Overcharging (Contract and Misrepresentation)
Leaseholders and freeholders are likewise classified under NACE L68.20 and 68.32 (SIC 68209 and 68320) for their contractual engagements with managing agents (inspire.ec.europa.eu, siccode.co.uk). Professional services—legal advisers (NACE M69.1, SIC 69100) and accountants (NACE M69.2, SIC 69201)—incur advisory and litigation costs. Financial‐services firms offering buy-to-let mortgages (NACE K64.1, SIC 64191) face secondary impacts from rising charge disputes. Direct losses arise from unreasonable service-charge demands; spill-over harms affect estate-agents, surveyors and asset managers. The probability of collective restitution claims via mediation is moderate to high, reflecting precedent in leasehold-fee disputes and the availability of redress through ombudsman schemes.

Unsafe Infrastructure (Public-Law and Negligence)
Bus and coach operators are classed under NACE H49.39 (other passenger land transport) and SIC 49110 for scheduled and occasional coach services (inspire.ec.europa.eu). Highway and rail infrastructure contractors fall within NACE F42.11 (construction of roads and motorways) and SIC 42110. Accessibility and safety-equipment manufacturers sit in NACE C28.99 and SIC 33200 for other special-purpose machinery. Emergency services and insurers, under NACE O84.11 and SIC 84120 for regulation of social services, face increased response and liability costs (siccode.co.uk). Pedestrians, cyclists and passengers experience direct injury risks and indirect costs from delays, detours and reputational damage to operators. Probability of success in collective negligence claims or regulatory complaints is moderate, given the emerging jurisprudence on equality-duty breaches.

Competition-Law Violations (Anti-Competitive Agreements and Abuse of Dominance)
All previously noted sectors—real estate (L68.20, 68.32), transport (H49.39), construction (F43.3, F42.11) and professional services (M69)—are implicated if cartel arrangements or exclusionary conduct arise (ec.europa.eu, ec.europa.eu). Retail supply chains (G47) and logistics providers (H49.4) bear negative spill-overs through inflated prices and restricted service levels. Professional-service intermediaries—lawyers, accountants and economic consultants—incur advisory and litigation costs. The probability of follow-on damages actions succeeding in the Competition Appeal Tribunal or via settlement is low to moderate, reflecting high evidentiary thresholds and the early stage of private enforcement in the UK.

Consumer-Protection Infringements (Unfair Terms and Misleading Practices)
Sectors offering goods and services—retail (G47), hospitality (I56), utilities (D35) and digital platforms (J62)—may embed unfair contract terms that deter switching or misstate rights (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk). Consumer-advocacy bodies and advice services, under NACE S94.1 and SIC 94990, engage in redress and awareness campaigns. Direct losses derive from over-payment, refusal of refunds or unwanted auto-renewals; spill-overs affect market trust and compliance costs for compliant businesses. The probability of mediated resolutions or landmark test cases is moderate, given robust regulatory enforcement and growing consumer empowerment.

Investor-Misstatement Claims (Negligent Misstatements and Fiduciary Breach)
Affected parties include financial-services firms (NACE K64.99, SIC 64999), capital-markets intermediaries (K64.3, SIC 66110), audit firms (M69.10, SIC 69201) and corporate-transaction advisers (M69.2). Secondary impacts extend to downstream investors in REITs (real-estate investment trusts) and pension-fund managers allocating to affected sectors. Direct losses occur through share-price drops and dividend cutbacks; spill-overs harm market confidence and increase compliance burdens. Probability of securing compensation via financial-ombudsman mediation is low to moderate, whereas proceedings under the Financial Services and Markets Act in the civil courts face high evidentiary hurdles.

---

CONTACTS + INDUSTRY CODES

In mapping our case onto the official industry classifications, we can pinpoint the precise economic activities in which both the defendants and the class members operate. Social housing providers fall under NACE code L68.20 (“Renting and operating of own or leased real estate”), correlating with SIC 68209 for “Other letting and operating of own or leased real estate.” The largest landlords in this space are Clarion Housing Group (125,000 homes) reachable at customerservices@myclarionhousing.co.uk and L&Q (over 120,000 homes) via lqaftercaresouth@lqgroup.org.uk. Peabody Trust, with 104,000 properties, can be engaged at residents@peabodynewhomes.co.uk.

The professional managing agents who administer those estates are classified under NACE 68.32 and SIC 68320 (“Management of real estate on a fee or contract basis”). FirstPort Property Services, one of the UK’s biggest managers, may be contacted at help@firstport.co.uk, while Countrywide plc, another major operator, fields enquiries at enquiries@countrywide.co.uk. Savills plc, though more widely known for brokerage, also provides estate management services under SIC 68320; their residential team can be reached via residential@savills.com.

Public transport operators, where our negligence and equality-duty claims focus on hazardous “floating” bus stops, fall under NACE H49.39 (“Other passenger land transport”) and SIC 49110 (“Passenger rail transport, interurban”). Stagecoach Group plc (SGC.L) takes customer bus enquiries at customer.services@stagecoachbus.com, National Express Group plc (NEX.L) at customerservices@nationalexpress.com, Arriva UK Bus (a DB subsidiary) at customerservice@arriva.co.uk, and Go-Ahead Group plc (GOG.L) at communications@go-ahead.com. These companies share common design standards imposed by Transport for London (NACE O84.12; SIC 84130) and its equivalents in other regions—TfL can be reached via customer.services@tfl.gov.uk, TfGM via customer.relations@tfgm.com, the Department for Transport at dft@dft.gov.uk, and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority at enquiries@greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk.

On the regulatory side, competition infringements and consumer-duty contraventions fall under NACE O84.30 (“Regulation of other economic affairs”) and SIC 84120 (“Regulation of competition, consumer affairs”). The Competition and Markets Authority is contactable at information@cma.gov.uk, the Financial Conduct Authority at consumer.queries@fca.org.uk, and the Regulator of Social Housing at enquiries@rsh.gov.uk. For independent redress, the Housing Ombudsman Service may be addressed at info@housing-ombudsman.org.uk, and Citizens Advice aggregates consumer and tenant grievances at consumer.service@citizensadvice.org.uk.

Finally, the class members themselves—residents suffering disrepair, leaseholders overcharged for opaque service fees, and passengers endangered by poorly designed infrastructure—all share a common industry footprint defined by these NACE and SIC codes. Their collective interests coalesce around the same economic parameters and legal obligations, ensuring that our representative action will address a uniform type of harm across a clearly delineated set of markets and corporate actors.

Our analysis identifies key corporate actors across the social housing and transport sectors whose practices give rise to our potential claims, and pinpoints direct contact emails for both defendants—social landlords, managing agents, transport operators, and regulators—and claimant-side organisations and support bodies. In social housing, Clarion Housing Group (customerservices@myclarionhousing.co.uk), Latimer by Clarion (MertonRegen@ClarionHG.com), L&Q (lqaftercaresouth@lqgroup.org.uk; centralsupportservices@lqgroup.org.uk), and Peabody Trust (peabody.direct@peabody.org.uk; residents@peabodynewhomes.co.uk) operate at scale across the UK and share uniform repair and service-charge obligations. Among managing agents, FirstPort (help@firstport.co.uk) oversees hundreds of developments, making it a prime target for collective contract and tort claims. In public transport, major operators include Stagecoach (customer.services@stagecoachbus.com; info@stagecoachgroup.com), Arriva (customerservice@arriva.co.uk; enquiries@arriva.co.uk), and Go-Ahead Group (communications@go-ahead.com; grouplegal@go-ahead.com), each of which faces potential negligence and equality-duty challenges over unsafe or exclusionary infrastructure. Regulators such as the CMA (information@cma.gov.uk) and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) can be engaged to secure infringement findings that enable follow-on class damages actions. Consumer and tenant advice bodies like Citizens Advice (consumer.service@citizensadvice.org.uk) and the Housing Ombudsman (info@housing-ombudsman.org.uk) form the backbone of claimant support and can consolidate member grievances for class certification.

Social Housing Providers

Clarion Housing Group, the UK’s largest landlord, manages over 125,000 homes and fields resident enquiries at customerservices@myclarionhousing.co.uk (bromley.gov.uk). Its development arm, Latimer by Clarion, can be reached for procurement or development disputes at MertonRegen@ClarionHG.com (42stationroadlive.com). London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q), with more than 120,000 homes, directs repair and warranty queries to lqaftercaresouth@lqgroup.org.uk and centrally to centralsupportservices@lqgroup.org.uk (lqgroup.org.uk, help.lqgroup.org.uk). Peabody Trust, overseeing 104,000 properties, offers a direct corporate contact at peabody.direct@peabody.org.uk (register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk) and a resident-facing email for existing homeowners at residents@peabodynewhomes.co.uk (peabodynewhomes.co.uk). Each of these providers imposes service charges and repair obligations that, if found unreasonable or negligent, create a common contractual and tortious injury across all tenants.

Managing Agents

FirstPort Property Services, one of the UK’s leading managing agents across hundreds of residential developments, channels all customer and service-charge enquiries through help@firstport.co.uk (firstport.co.uk). Its uniform complaints procedures and centralized triage system underpin the same duty of care and contractual transparency owed to all leaseholders, making FirstPort liable for collective claims regarding opaque billing and neglect of repair covenants.

Bus and Transport Operators

Stagecoach Group, a £1.37 billion transport conglomerate, places customer bus enquiries at customer.services@stagecoachbus.com and non-customer queries at info@stagecoachgroup.com (stagecoachbus.com). Arriva UK Bus, operating over 5,900 buses nationwide, handles complaints at customerservice@arriva.co.uk and corporate enquiries at enquiries@arriva.co.uk (offleyparishcouncil.gov.uk, arrivagroup.com). Go-Ahead Group, with both bus and rail franchises, fields media and sustainability queries at communications@go-ahead.com and legal correspondence at grouplegal@go-ahead.com (go-ahead.com). These operators share a common duty to ensure pedestrian and passenger safety at infrastructure interfaces—like bus stop designs—and equal access under the Public Sector Equality Duty, making them co-defendants in any negligence or statutory-duty collective actions.

Transport Authorities and Regulators

Transport for London oversees the franchising and safety standards of all London bus routes and can be engaged via the TFL Bus Contact Form or by phone at 0343 222 1234; formal written enquiries can be addressed to London Buses Customer Services, 14 Pier Walk, London SE10 0ES (goaheadlondon.com). The Competition and Markets Authority, critical for obtaining infringement findings, receives public enquiries at information@cma.gov.uk . Engagement with these bodies is essential both for non-litigious redress and to secure decisions that enable follow-on damages in the Competition Appeal Tribunal or civil courts.

Consumer and Tenant Support Organisations

Citizens Advice, a charity supporting consumer and housing claims, coordinates advice via consumer.service@citizensadvice.org.uk and can aggregate individual grievances into collective representations. The Housing Ombudsman Service offers independent redress for landlord and managing-agent disputes at info@housing-ombudsman.org.uk (myclarionhousing.com). These organisations channel individual claims for inclusion in a class action strategy, ensuring commonality in the type of harm—whether contractual over-charges or health-endangering disrepair—is clearly articulated to courts and regulators

---

---

WPIS

For each of the uploaded documents, I have reviewed the full text and drawn out the provisions, principles and examples most directly relevant to our collective-action strategy. Below, I describe what I extracted from each file and explain why it bolsters our case:

Tort Claims Against UK Regulators_.docx
From this expert report on regulatory tort liability, I distilled the tripartite framework for suing a public regulator in negligence—foreseeability, proximity and the “fair, just and reasonable” policy layer from Caparo —as well as the critical distinction between omissions (for which there is generally no duty) and positive misfeasance (where a regulator’s active intervention makes things worse). I also highlighted the misfeasance-in-public-office tort and breach-of-statutory-duty route. These extractions give us a clear roadmap for framing any claim against the CMA, FCA or local authority as a positive act that created or exacerbated harm, rather than a mere failure to regulate.

I chose this material because it shows precisely how narrow the window is for a damages claim against a regulator—and therefore how important it will be to tie any class grievance to an active regulatory decision or intervention that foreseeably worsened class members’ position.

WPI UN EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS.PDF
This briefing on “Welfare and Public Interest” grounds in EU competition law sets out the expanded notion of “undertaking,” the classification of sustainability, biodiversity and social welfare objectives as legitimate public-interest goals, and the Commission’s willingness to treat data privacy or environmental protection as parameters of competition. I pulled out the sections describing (a) how privacy can be measured as a competitive parameter, (b) the Facebook/German BKA decision using abuse-of-dominance law to police data exploitation, and (c) AstraZeneca’s misleading representations as an exclusionary abuse.

These examples underscore that the same competition rules can be wielded to protect broad public-interest values—environmental, social, health—from corporate or platform abuses. We can invoke that precedent to argue that systematic service-charge overcharging or unsafe transport designs harm not only consumers but public welfare.

WPI REGULATIONS PUS DISC.RATE.pdf
Here I extracted the government’s Social Time Preference Rate (STPR) methodology from the Green Book, including the decomposition into pure time preference and risk components, and noted the narrow 3.5 percent real discount rate plus exceptions (e.g. intergenerational transfers, health discounting).

Having these technical discounting rules at our fingertips strengthens any challenge to public-sector cost-benefit analyses—whether in judicial review of a transport scheme or in contract claims over appliance of the wrong rate to service-charge budgets—by showing a clear statutory standard that has been misapplied.

WPI JR.pdf
From the chapter on Judicial Review of EU Commission competition decisions, I drew out the precise contours of direct actions (annulment, failure-to-act, damages), the strict standing and time-limit rules, and the evolving substantive review standard—especially the willingness of the General Court to scrutinise economic evidence rather than simply defer.

This material arms us with the procedural blueprint for mounting a challenge to a merger clearance or refusal to enforce, and it flags the need to secure individual or direct concern standing by active participation in the administrative phase.

WPI GROUNDS + GOALS_1.pdf
I selected the concrete JR grounds sketched there—ultra vires, procedural unfairness, breach of the Equality Act, human-rights victim status, failure to consider relevant factors under the Climate Change Act, and the nascent ClientEarth challenge to the FCA’s climate-risk disclosure.

These examples supply us with tailored, up-to-date templates for every major regulatory breach: environmental reporting, equality-duty failures, statutory-interpretation errors and misfeasance. We can adapt them to our class’s specific grievances.

WPI GROUNDS + GOALS_2.pdf
This file’s deep dive into quasi-markets showed how externalities and information asymmetries—whether in environmental goods or liberal professional services—justify regulation, but also risk regulatory capture. I extracted the useful-effect doctrine, the Albany pension-fund exception, and the roadmap for tying jurisdictional scope to justification under Articles 86 and 87 TFEU.

Understanding these principles lets us argue both that public bodies have a positive duty to consider social-welfare objectives, and that any failure to do so opens them to challenge under EU-derived duties still in force domestically.

WPI GROUNDS + GOALS_3.pdf
From this continuation I gathered the Altmark criteria for State-aid exclusion of public-service compensation, the trade-off between legal certainty and proportionality review, and case law on media subsidies and cost-benchmark standards.

Those extracts show how judicial review can probe deeply into public-service financing arrangements and hold regulators or Ministries to account when they overcompensate or fail to advertise transparent tender processes.

wpi.examples.I.pdf
This collection of concrete claim scenarios—Good Law Project’s s. 13/14 Climate Change Act JR, political appointments without competition, human-rights victim status—provides real-world illumination of how to cast our own grounds.

I chose these because they give us turn-key pleadings and the procedural steps taken to secure standing, which we can mirror for our class representative.

wpi.examples.II.pdf
Here the focus on environmental markets yielded detailed examples from the Emissions Trading Scheme and Performance Standard Rate trading, including the EnBW challenge to Germany’s National Allocation Plan.

These examples reinforce our argument that widespread regulatory under-scrutiny of carbon-market design inflicts a common financial and environmental harm on all participants—precisely the commonality needed for class proceedings.

WPIS_ S.9 EXEMPTION. CCAS. CRP. GLP ON ENZF.pdf
Finally, I extracted the CMA’s four-step “efficiency” test under section 9 for clearing rival collaborations, especially noting how sustainability-driven agreements (climate-change agreements) may benefit from a broader “non-conservative” consumer-benefit calculation and relaxed quantification requirements.

That gives us a powerful lever to argue that any private-sector coordination imposed by a public authority—such as between landlords or bus operators—must pass the same rigorous scrutiny of necessity, consumer benefit and lack of competitive elimination.

---

COMMONALITIES – GPT

The documents you supplied reveal several scenarios in which groups of affected individuals could jointly threaten or bring legal claims under tort or contract law. In each case, the prospective class members share a common type of harm arising from a systemic failure by the responsible party—whether a landlord, managing agent, or public authority—to fulfill its legal duties.

First, tenants in social housing suffering from pervasive damp, mould and unrepaired defects face a uniform breach of the landlord’s duty of care in negligence and nuisance, as well as breach of express and implied repair covenants in their tenancy agreements. All tenants in a particular block or estate are exposed to the same unhealthy living conditions that aggravate respiratory illnesses and damage personal property, giving rise to a collective negligence claim for personal injury and property loss alongside contractual claims for specific performance of repair obligations and restitution of diminution in property value .

Second, leaseholders burdened with sharply escalating, non-itemised service charges confront identical contractual breaches by managing agents under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Each leaseholder has suffered the same financial loss from unreasonable and opaque demands, creating a uniform class of victims entitled to restitution of excessive charges and declarations of breach of the statutory reasonableness requirement .

Third, residents subject to unsafe “floating” bus stop designs share a common physical risk and exclusion from public transport. This cohort could collectively pursue negligence claims against highway authorities and transport operators for failure to conduct adequate equality impact assessments under the Public Sector Equality Duty, resulting in dangerous conflict points for pedestrians and cyclists .

Across these scenarios, the element of commonality is clear: each prospective class member has endured the same type of harm as a direct consequence of the defendant’s systemic breach—whether that is health-endangering disrepair, financial overcharge, or safety-compromising infrastructure. That uniformity of injury and causal nexus underpins the suitability of collective proceedings, enabling a single class representative to litigate on behalf of all affected individuals in tort or contract without requiring each person to bring an individual claim .

---

WPIS / COLLECTIVE TORTS

---

GPT STRATEGY

Executive Summary

As COCOO’s solicitor, the analysis reveals multiple avenues for legal action across tort and contract law, competition violation liabilities under the Competition Act 1998, breaches of public interest duties such as the Public Sector Equality Duty, consumer protection infringements under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and potential investor wrongs including mis-selling and breach of fiduciary duties. In tort, negligent failures in public service delivery and unsafe infrastructure designs create clear duties of care that have been breached. Contractually, opaque leasehold service charges and unfair terms expose managing agents to breach of statutory covenants and misrepresentation claims. Competition law liabilities may arise from cartel arrangements or abuse of dominance in relevant markets, actionable through claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal or civil courts. Consumer harms include unreasonable, non-itemised charges and unfair contract terms, while investors can pursue damages where improper conduct or misinformation has impacted investment decisions. Progressing the strategy requires a structured sequence: thorough fact-finding and evidence collection, engagement with regulatory bodies, pre-action correspondence under the Civil Procedure Rules and relevant protocols, concurrent exploration of non-litigious remedies such as independent redress schemes, and, where necessary, initiation of formal litigation or Judicial Review challenges.

Possible Causes of Legal Action

The failures identified by COCOO in public bodies and private entities give rise to multiple tort and contract claims. Public authorities’ lapses in statutory duties for essential services, such as waste collection, constitute negligence and nuisance, since residents faced health risks from accumulating refuse breaching the duty of care owed by councils to avoid foreseeable harm . Likewise, the design and implementation of “floating bus stops” without adequate regard for pedestrian safety and accessibility represent a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty and actionable negligence claims .

Contract claims stem from opaque leasehold service charges that breach express and implied terms under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, failing the requirement that all charges be reasonably incurred and transparent . Managing agents issuing unexplained, steep service charge hikes may also face misrepresentation claims where homeowners relied on false or incomplete information about their liabilities .

Competition Violation Liabilities

Under the Competition Act 1998, any agreement or concerted practice that restricts competition is prohibited by the Chapter I prohibition, while abuse of a dominant market position falls under Chapter II (en.wikipedia.org). Private enforcement actions for damages can be brought before the Competition Appeal Tribunal following a finding of infringement or directly before civil courts on a standalone basis (uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com). Economic torts such as conspiracy to use unlawful means or tortious interference further enhance remedies for victims of anti-competitive conduct (globalcompliancenews.com).

Public Interest Violations

Public bodies owe procedural duties of legality, rationality, and fairness, which if breached can be challenged by Judicial Review. A failure to conduct robust consultations, properly consider alternatives, or record critical deliberations may render decisions unlawful (en.wikipedia.org). The Public Sector Equality Duty mandates that decision-makers give “due regard” to advancing equality; ignoring design risks to disabled persons when approving infrastructure exposes authorities to successful JR claims for irrationality and illegality (en.wikipedia.org).

Consumer and Investor Violations

Consumers are protected against unfair terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which invalidates clauses causing significant imbalance and mandates transparent, prominent contract terms (en.wikipedia.org). Opaque leasehold billing practices, without itemisation or justification, may contravene these requirements, inviting claims for injunctive relief and damages .

Investors may pursue remedies for negligent misstatements, breach of fiduciary duties by corporate directors, or insider trading under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; these claims hinge on proof of reliance on misleading information and resulting financial loss (en.wikipedia.org). Where directors or parent companies procure breaches of competition law, concurrent tortious liability can attach (steptoe.com).

Strategic Steps to Progress

To operationalise this strategy, begin with a comprehensive evidence-gathering phase, including client interviews, FOI requests, and independent technical reports to substantiate negligence, breach, or anti-competitive conduct. Concurrently initiate pre-action steps: for tort and contract claims, serve Pre-Action Protocol letters detailing the alleged breaches, potential remedies, and invitation for dialogue under the Civil Procedure Rules. For competition actions, consider lodging complaints with the Competition and Markets Authority to secure an infringement decision enabling follow-on damages claims.

Engage with regulators and ombudsmen to explore non-litigious redress: propose independent redress schemes for leasehold disputes, safety taskforces for transport design, and Tenant Advocacy Panels under the Regulator of Social Housing’s proactive model. Where public bodies have failed statutory duties, prepare Grounds of Challenge for Judicial Review, ensuring strict compliance with time limits and judicial protocols.

Should non-litigious measures falter, proceed to formal litigation in the appropriate forums: County or High Court for negligence and contract claims, Competition Appeal Tribunal for competition damages, or judicial review in the Administrative Court. Throughout, maintain robust client communication, manage media and stakeholder relations to protect reputational interests, and pursue parallel settlement negotiations to achieve efficient, wide-ranging remedies

---

GEMINI STRATEGY

The issues at hand can be broadly categorised into failures of public service and safety, failures in housing standards and regulation, and systemic failures in governance and finance. Each category presents clear avenues for legal action.

Regarding failures in public service and safety, we see two primary examples: the Birmingham waste collection crisis and the implementation of so-called “floating bus stops.” In the Birmingham case, the Council’s prolonged failure to collect waste gives rise to clear potential actions in tort. A claim in negligence could be founded on the Council’s breach of its duty of care to residents, a duty which includes maintaining a sanitary environment. The resulting harm is demonstrable through public health risks, such as pest infestations and the potential spread of disease, and the direct financial costs incurred by residents for private disposal. Separately, the situation constitutes a powerful case for public nuisance, defined by the unlawful interference with the public’s right to health, comfort, and safety. The harm here is the loss of amenity and the creation of a hazardous environment.

From a contractual perspective, the Birmingham crisis is inextricably linked to the Council’s historic failure to honour its employment contracts regarding equal pay, leading to a crippling £1 billion liability. This breach of contract with its employees has had a direct causal link to the subsequent service failure, as financial instability has hampered the Council’s operational capacity. This chain of events represents a significant violation of the public interest, where internal governance and contractual failures manifest as a public health emergency. It also harms investor confidence; the financial mismanagement and resulting service collapse make the city a less attractive proposition for investment, distorting the competitive landscape between UK cities.

Similarly, the “floating bus stops” issue presents a clear case in tort. Local transport authorities, and potentially the Department for Transport through its guidance, have a duty of care to ensure the safety of all road users. By creating an infrastructure design that forces pedestrians, particularly disabled and vulnerable individuals, to cross active cycle lanes, these bodies have arguably breached that duty. Any injury resulting from this design would form the basis of a negligence claim. The foreseeable nature of the harm is critical here. This is not merely a consumer rights issue but a direct threat to public safety. The public interest is violated by the creation of exclusionary infrastructure that prevents a segment of the population from safely accessing essential public transport. This also impacts competition among transport modes, as making bus travel demonstrably less safe or accessible can push consumers towards private vehicles, undermining sustainable transport objectives.

Turning to failures in housing standards and regulation, we see potential actions in both contract and tort. For tenants in social housing suffering from damp, mould, and severe disrepair, a claim can be brought against their landlord for breach of the tenancy agreement. This contract contains express and implied terms requiring the landlord to keep the property in a reasonable state of repair. Failure to do so is a direct breach. Concurrently, a tortious claim for negligence exists where the landlord’s failure to maintain the property breaches their duty of care, causing harm such as respiratory illnesses or damage to personal property.

The same principles apply to leaseholders facing excessive and opaque service charges. The lease is a contract that implies terms of reasonableness and transparency in charges. Demanding sums that have increased exponentially without itemisation or justification is a potential breach of that contract. This directly harms consumers, who are trapped in agreements where one party appears to be acting without good faith. This situation also creates a significant distortion of competition. Reputable property management companies that invest in transparent accounting and fair pricing are placed at a competitive disadvantage against firms that exploit the lack of regulation to inflate profits. This is a market failure enabled by a regulatory vacuum, harming both consumers and fair-competing businesses. The public interest is harmed by the erosion of trust in the housing sector and the financial hardship imposed on homeowners. Investor interest in the residential property market, particularly in large-scale developments, can also be damaged by the reputational risk associated with such widespread mismanagement and consumer detriment.

Finally, we must address the systemic failures in governance and finance. While these issues, such as the outdated local government funding formula or the pause of the CARS project, are primarily matters for public law and Judicial Review, they have tangible consequences that touch upon the interests we protect. The persistent use of outdated funding data creates a distorted competitive environment between local authorities, where some are starved of resources not because of inefficiency, but due to a flawed central government process. This harms the public interest by ensuring services are not funded based on need, and it harms investors by creating financial instability and uncertainty in councils that might otherwise be sound investments. The decision to pause a vital infrastructure project like CARS, potentially based on an irrational failure to consider current evidence, directly harms consumers (commuters), businesses that rely on the transport link, and the wider public interest by stifling economic growth and housing development.

Our strategy should therefore be multi-faceted. We will pursue actions in tort to seek compensation for individuals who have suffered direct harm, such as illness from waste or injury from unsafe infrastructure. We will advance actions in contract to hold landlords and managing agents to account for their agreements with tenants and leaseholders, seeking restitution for unreasonable charges and specific performance of repair obligations. Critically, we will use these private law actions to build a body of evidence demonstrating systemic failure. This evidence will underpin our broader public interest campaign, highlighting the competition distortions and consumer harm that result from the regulatory and governance failures of public authorities. By demonstrating the concrete consequences of these high-level failures, we can create the necessary pressure for the systemic reforms that are ultimately required.