Budget 2026: what it means for you and your business —
In short
Assurance is not an all-or-nothing choice between a full audit and nothing at all. A limited-assurance review or an agreed-upon-procedures engagement can give a bank, funder, board or investor the comfort they actually need — scoped tightly to the specific question, and at a fraction of the cost of an audit. Most organisations are paying for the wrong point on that spectrum, in one direction or the other.
A review engagement in which we perform enquiry and analytical procedures — substantially less work than an audit — and conclude on whether anything has come to our attention suggesting the financial statements are materially misstated.
That is negative assurance: we are not asserting the accounts are correct, we are reporting that nothing suggests they are wrong. For many stakeholders, that is genuinely sufficient — and it costs a fraction of an audit.
The most flexible and often the most useful option. You (and, usually, the party asking for comfort) specify exactly what you want checked. We perform those procedures and report the factual findings — without expressing an opinion or a conclusion.
Typical uses: verifying a grant claim for a funder; confirming a covenant calculation for a lender; checking a royalty or commission statement; confirming a specific balance before an investment.
Because the scope is precisely defined, so is the cost. You pay for the question you actually need answered, and not for a general examination of the whole business.
Your bank wants comfort but no audit is required. A review or a covenant-specific procedure usually satisfies them. A funder requires verification of a grant claim. Agreed-upon procedures are typically exactly what the grant terms specify. An incoming investor wants reassurance on particular figures ahead of a small investment, where full due diligence would be disproportionate. You have just dropped out of audit and want to retain some independent scrutiny — often the wisest decision an exiting-audit business can make.
Always check what the stakeholder actually requires. Some grant and covenant terms specifically demand an audit by a registered auditor, in which case a review will not do and we will tell you so.
Three things.
Confirm you’re genuinely exempt. The two-year rule, group aggregation and your own articles can all still require an audit, and an incorrectly claimed exemption is a compliance failure.
Ask your stakeholders first. Banks, lenders and funders may still expect audited or reviewed accounts, and some covenants require them. Find out before you cancel the engagement.
Replace the scrutiny, not just the cost. An audit provided an external check on your controls. Removing it without putting anything in its place is precisely when errors and fraud start to go unnoticed.
We do not carry out statutory audits, voluntary audits or charity audits. Where an audit is genuinely required, we will tell you so plainly, prepare you thoroughly for it, and can refer you to a registered auditor — while continuing to look after your accounts, tax and advisory needs.
Scoped to the actual question — you pay for what the stakeholder needs, not a general examination.
We’ll tell you when a review won’t do — some covenants and grants require a registered auditor.
Proportionate and fixed-fee — a fraction of an audit’s cost and disruption.
Chartered (ICAEW) since 1947 — a name a bank or funder recognises.
Ideal for businesses newly out of audit who want to keep some independent scrutiny.
This page provides general information about the 2026/27 UK tax year and is not advice on your particular circumstances. Tax and regulatory rules change frequently. Please contact us before acting, or refraining from acting, on anything set out here. LMJ Group is a firm of Chartered Accountants regulated by the ICAEW. LMJ Group is not a registered auditor and does not provide audit services. Last reviewed: July 2026.
