HMRC is checking a claim another firm prepared.

You can instruct us. The claim belongs to the company, not to the firm that prepared it, and the company decides who acts for it. We review what was claimed, take over correspondence with HMRC once you authorise us, and tell you where the claim is strong and where it is not. We also defend R&D enquiries on claims prepared by others.

Sometimes, and sometimes not. A good adviser will provide the working papers and explain what they did. Others stop replying or say help is outside their engagement. We ask once, in writing, on your behalf. If no help comes, we work from what the company holds and rebuild the evidence from the people who did the work.

Ask in writing, say which claim and period you mean, and set a date. We can draft that request for you. The company's own records, such as payroll, invoices and project files, are yours in any case. If the adviser's papers do not arrive, we do not wait: we rebuild the technical and cost evidence from source.

Then we tell you in confidence before HMRC hears it from anyone else. We work out the correct figure and set out your options, which can include correcting the claim. The full overclaim must be repaid even if the adviser took a fee from it, and telling HMRC unprompted generally leads to lower penalties.

That depends on the engagement letter, which we do not see until you share it. Read what it says about notice, about fees for work done and about work after filing. We do not give legal advice on contract disputes, but we can say whether the work was done to a standard that would stand up. That can inform your decision.

Possibly, but that is a question for a solicitor, not for us. What matters now is that the company is responsible for its return, and HMRC will look to the company for any repayment. Keep the engagement letter and all correspondence, because they may matter later. We focus on dealing with the enquiry properly.

Yes. We interview the people who did the technical work, go through the project records and write a fresh account of the uncertainty, the work and the advance, measured against the Government's guidelines. Where the original claim was boilerplate, this often means narrowing the claim to what can be shown. A smaller, honest claim is a better position than a larger weak one.

The company is responsible for its claim, whoever prepared it. HMRC does take an interest in agents: it can refuse to deal with them, and its anti-abuse unit looks at suspected abuse at agent level. We cannot predict how an officer will behave, but a calm, evidence-led response is the best approach whoever prepared the claim.

The papers may be hard to recover, so we work from the company's own records and the people involved. The notification and the additional information form name every agent who advised on the claim, which helps us see who was involved and how it was put together. We then build the position from there.

Yes. HMRC publishes guidance on reporting poor R&D service standards and gives an email address for complaints about R&D agents. Think about timing and take advice first, because a report may prompt questions about your own claim. We can tell you what is sensible at your stage, and we can help you prepare the facts.

If the review shows the claim was overstated, usually yes, and sooner is better, because unprompted disclosure generally leads to lower penalties. But we do not decide that on instinct. We assess first, then explain the position and the options. You may find that the claim is largely sound and needs only better evidence.

Then we look at all of them, starting with the one under enquiry. If one claim was built on boilerplate or untraceable costs, the others may share the same weakness. It is better to know, and to decide what to do, before HMRC extends its questions. We tell you what each year looks like.

We start with the letter, the claim, the additional information form and the cost schedule, then compare them with each other and with the project records. Inconsistencies show up fast. Within a short review we can usually say whether the claim is sound, weak or in need of correction, and what to do first.

Yes, once the enquiry is under control. By then the enquiry has shown what good evidence looks like. A new claim prepared to our standard, with the records built in, is the best way to stop the problem recurring. If you want, our Assured and Zero Risk packages include record-keeping set-up and quarterly check-ins.

Choose an adviser who explains their method, shows you the draft before it is filed and does not rely on templates. Keep project records through the year, with a short note of the uncertainty at the start. Ask who signs off the claim and who defends it. Our page on moving provider lists the questions to ask.