Small business grants agency reviews: four consultancies checked on public evidence

This desk review examines the public service descriptions of four grant consultancies serving organisations in England. It does not score service quality, success or value because no paid engagement, proposal, reference call or live application was tested.

What to take away

• The review compares public pages of four grant consultancies but does not score quality or success.
• No paid engagement, proposal, reference call or live application was tested for any provider.
• Provider statistics and testimonials are treated as first-party claims, not independently verified facts.
• A full check before selection needs legal, ownership, contract, fee, capacity, security and reference evidence.
• Inclusion in this review is not endorsement or government approval of any consultancy.

Method and limits

Official provider pages were accessed on 4 September 2026. Review fields were audience, stated grant services, public location information and follow-up checks needed. Provider statistics and testimonials were treated as first-party claims. There were no commercial relationships or provider contributions.

Every organisation needs a fresh legal-entity, ownership, contract, fee, capacity, security and reference check before selection. Inclusion is not endorsement or government approval.

GrantTree

GrantTree's website describes innovation-grant identification and application support, R&D tax services and funding products. It lists a London address and publishes named client testimonials and cumulative funding claims.

The public material supports classifying GrantTree as an innovation-funding consultancy. It does not independently verify the claimed totals, success, current capacity or fit for a particular competition. A full review needs the calculation method, contracting entity, named consultant, proposal, fee scenarios, data terms and comparable references.

TBAT Innovation

TBAT's company page says it supports UK technology and research and development organisations with grant funding and tax incentives. It lists a grants team and an East Midlands address. Public material also advertises grant-claim management.

The stated combination may interest applicants wanting pre-award and post-award support. The desk review did not test either service. Confirm the specific team, relevant scheme work, availability, pricing, professional responsibilities, security and contract. Check any claim about eligible consultancy cost against the live funder rules.

PNO Innovation

PNO Innovation's national funding page describes opportunity scanning, project shaping, proposal development, funder communication and reporting support. It presents a cross-border innovation consultancy and publishes company performance claims.

The public scope suits initial investigation for national or international innovation funding. A buyer should identify the UK contracting party and delivery team, verify the method behind published figures and check data transfer, fee, conflicts, capacity and exit.

Clive Owen LLP

Clive Owen's grants advisory page describes identification, application, compliance and assurance work. The broader accountancy context may support finance-related needs, but independence and role boundaries must be checked for the particular engagement.

Obtain a named proposal, relevant references, complete fees and professional terms. Ask whether application, project finance, assurance and audit tasks can be combined without a conflict and who is responsible for each conclusion.

What the review establishes

All four had public pages describing grant-related services when checked. It does not establish which is best, which will accept a business, how much work the named team will perform or whether any provider's involvement improves award chances.

Check filed identity through Companies House and official grant process claims against the relevant funder. Apply the CMA's reviews and endorsements guidance to incentives and review presentation.

Evidence needed for a verdict

A later comparative verdict needs the same realistic brief and written proposal from each suitable agency. Review the named team, timetable, applicant workload, exclusions, fee scenarios, contract, information security and exit. Contact comparable references through a route that does not depend solely on selected testimonials.

Paid sample work can test factual challenge, writing, financial consistency and response to correction. It still cannot prove that the agency caused an award. The funder's competition, applicant project and external conditions also affect the result.

Publish test dates and rejected evidence. If one agency declines participation, say so without treating refusal as proof of poor performance.

This draft contains no live internal links and remains on hold until providers receive a factual correction opportunity and independent proposal, reference and contract evidence supports any stronger verdict.

Before you act

• Check filed identity through Companies House
• Verify official grant process claims with the relevant funder
• Obtain a named proposal and complete fees
• Contact comparable references through an independent route
• Confirm data transfer, security and exit terms
• Publish test dates and any rejected evidence

Common questions

What did the desk review actually examine?

It examined public service descriptions of four grant consultancies serving organisations in England. Official provider pages were accessed on 4 September 2026. Review fields were audience, stated grant services, public location information and follow-up checks needed. No paid engagement, proposal, reference call or live application was tested.

Why does the review not rank the consultancies?

It does not score service quality, success or value because no paid engagement, proposal, reference call or live application was tested. Provider statistics and testimonials were treated as first-party claims. Inclusion is not endorsement or government approval. A verdict needs independent proposal, reference and contract evidence.

What should a buyer do before selecting a provider?

Every organisation needs a fresh legal-entity, ownership, contract, fee, capacity, security and reference check before selection. Check filed identity through Companies House and official grant process claims against the relevant funder. Obtain a named proposal, relevant references, complete fees and professional terms.