UK Engineering Group

From four projects to a £6m recovery

• Most recent claim: £900,000
• Total recovered: £6m
• HMRC challenges: None to date

The Client

Our client is a UK engineering group operating across 50 branches nationwide. The business supplies and distributes engineering equipment, while also redesigning hydraulic systems, optimising pumping infrastructure, and resolving complex mechanical challenges in demanding, high‑consequence environments.

Innovation was always present—it simply lived inside day‑to‑day operations rather than within a formal R&D function. Each year, the group delivered between 15 and 20 technically demanding projects. Yet when we were first engaged, only four were being treated as qualifying R&D.

The Challenge

The issue was never a lack of innovation. It was how that innovation was being assessed.

Projects were being judged by how novel or commercially impressive they appeared. The legislation, however, applies a narrower and more technical test—one centred on uncertainty.

Engineers naturally describe outcomes: improved systems, redesigned assemblies, measurable performance gains. The legislation asks a different set of questions: What was uncertain at the outset? Could the answer be readily deduced by a competent professional? Did resolving it require more than the routine application of existing knowledge?

Relying on generalist advisers and internal questionnaires resulted in an understandably cautious position. Substantial value remained embedded within operational work, while senior engineers and finance leads were spending disproportionate time trying to extract and document information.

Our Approach

We began with the four projects already identified as qualifying and treated them as reference points. From there, we reassessed the broader portfolio through structured technical workshops with engineering leads.

Each engagement was examined against three anchors: the baseline level of existing capability, the specific points of technical uncertainty, and the systematic work undertaken to resolve them. Rather than relying on pre‑filtered summaries and questionnaires, we conducted a full nominal ledger review to identify qualifying expenditure that had previously been misclassified or simply overlooked.

In several instances, projects initially described as “commercial improvements” met the statutory test once the underlying technical uncertainties were clearly articulated. In other cases, a discrete technical element within a wider contract formed the qualifying core.

The underlying activity did not change. The lens through which it was analysed did.

The Result

Qualifying projects increased from four to between 15 and 20 per year. The most recent claim totalled £900k, bringing cumulative recovery over the course of the relationship to £6m.

Equally important, the internal burden reduced materially. Weeks of fragmented information gathering were replaced with a small number of focused workshops and coordinated data requests managed by our team.

The uplift did not come from stretching definitions or altering technical activity. It came from analysing existing engineering work through the correct legislative framework.

Each submission is structured to withstand scrutiny from the outset. Technical narratives and cost treatment are aligned with current HMRC guidance, and we work closely with the client’s finance and audit teams to ensure consistency and defensibility. None of the claims prepared under this approach have been challenged by HMRC.

Strategic Impact

As the framework became embedded, technical leaders began identifying uncertainty earlier in project scoping. That cultural shift improved clarity—but recognising qualifying activity is not the same as constructing a robust claim.

Engineers focus, rightly, on solving mechanical and hydraulic problems. We take responsibility for interrogating the technical detail, drafting coherent narratives, analysing costs, mapping expenditure to qualifying activity, and stress‑testing the submission against legislative criteria.

By transferring that responsibility to a specialist team, the business protects senior engineering time, reduces administrative drag, and maintains a controlled compliance position—while capturing the full extent of legitimate R&D activity already taking place within the organisation.

If your team is spending too much time supporting your R&D claim, we should talk.

Book now