Seven major housebuilders have offered to pay the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) a total of £100m following its probe into potential anti-competitive behaviour.

The investigation was launched last year following concerns that Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley Group, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry had exchanged commercially sensitive details including pricing, property viewing numbers and buyers’ incentives such as stamp duty contributions.

In addition to the £100m payment, the housebuilders have agreed to commitments that will prevent anti-competitive behaviour in future, such as not sharing certain types of information with other housebuilders.

The CMA will consult on the commitments until 24 July when, if accepted, they will become legally binding, meaning it will not be necessary for the CMA to decide whether the housebuilders broke competition law.

Other commitments by the housebuilders include working with the Homes Builders Federation and Homes for Scotland to develop industry-wide guidelines on information-sharing.

The CMA said the £100m would be the largest payment secured through commitments from companies under investigation and would be split across affordable housing programmes across the UK.

CMA chief executive Sarah Cardell said the £100m would be used to “help communities up and down the country”.

She added: “Housing is a critical sector for the UK economy and housing costs are a substantial part of people’s monthly spend, so it’s essential that competition works well.

“This keeps prices as low as possible and increases choice. As a result of the CMA’s investigation, housebuilders are taking clear and comprehensive steps to ensure they comply with the law and don’t share competitively sensitive information with their rivals.”

Persimmon said its decision to offer “voluntary commitments does not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, nor does it imply that Persimmon agrees with the concerns expressed by the CMA in the investigation”. Persimmon’s proportionate contribution is £15.2m.

Any payments will be made within three months once agreed.

Noel Beale, partner in the competition & markets team at Michelmores LLP, said the developers’ commitments, such as not sharing certain types of information, “should lead to more competitiveness” in the market.

“From the CMA perspective, it’s an efficient way of bringing the matter to a close and getting some positive results, in terms of money from of the house builders that will ultimately benefit a set of consumers,” Beale added. “Also, it will mean that competition between them is more effective going forward.

“From a housebuilder perspective, they’ve avoided the risk of an infringement decision, and the financial penalty that would be associated with that. It’s made this problem go away.”

Meanwhile Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders, said this was a “reflection of a housing market that is dominated by the larger housebuilders”.

“It gives the impression that money will let you off any possible ramifications of CMA judgement,” Berry said. “It will look like the big boys got away with it again, because they’ve got deeper pockets.

“I think it raises questions about the independence and the professionalism about the CMA. It may all be perfectly okay, but it doesn’t seem right that by offering money, you can avoid the judgment.