Editorial policy

What we publish

• Product landers: MCA, asset finance, commercial mortgage, bridging, VAT loan, R&D advance.
• Sector landers: hospitality, e-commerce, construction, recruitment, manufacturing.
• Post-decline guides: CCJ, missed payments, thin file, sub-12-month trading, pre-revenue.
• Lender-panel disclosures (the named lenders we route to, by product).
• Eligibility-checker explanations and matching logic write-ups.

What we do not publish

• Single-lender reviews. FundBiz publishes comparison and introducer content, not standalone lender reviews.
• "Best of" rankings driven by advertiser payment. Our listings reflect panel fit, not who pays most.
• Sponsored content disguised as editorial. Any sponsored material is labelled "Sponsored" at the top, the sponsor is named, and the sponsor has no editorial input.
• AI-generated text without a named author signing it off. AI tools may assist drafting; every published piece is read, edited, and signed.

How a product or sector lander is written

1. Pull current product specs from each lender on the panel that offers it.
2. Pull eligibility, ticket size, decision time and required docs.
3. Pull our actual conversion data: which lender approves which sector, decline reasons we have seen, average ticket size offered.
4. Write the lander as a buyer-decision document, not as marketing.
5. Author signs and dates the lander. Material changes are logged in a footer note.

Sources we use

• Companies House for entity verification.
• FCA Register where the lender is regulated.
• Bank of England base rate for rate context.
• Lender product PDFs and panel-broker portals for current rate and eligibility.
• Our own application-to-decision data (anonymised, aggregated).

Updates

Every published page carries a "Last reviewed" date. We refresh product landers when rates, ticket bands or eligibility change. We refresh sector landers when our panel for that sector changes (a lender added, dropped, or paused).

Corrections

Email [email protected] with the page URL and the correction. We respond inside two working days. Material errors are corrected and logged in a page footer note.

Conflicts and commissions

We earn commission when an applicant we introduce successfully draws funding. Our matcher routes by lender criteria fit, not by commission tier. Where two lenders accept the same applicant, the matcher prefers the lender whose product better matches the applicant's stated need. The commission tier is a tie-breaker, not a primary criterion. The full mechanics are explained in how we work.

Right of reply for named lenders

Our lender panel carries 99 named lenders, each with a published overall rating plus separate scores for transparency, eligibility, speed and decline handling, and a summary of what the lender is best for and where it is weak. Getting a named lender's facts or score wrong is a higher-stakes error than a typo, so lenders get a direct route to challenge it.

Any lender listed on the panel can request a correction to its factual entry (company number, founded year, ticket range, rate, decision time) or a review of its rating and summary text. Email [email protected] with the lender name and the specific point in dispute. We check the disputed point against our own conversion data and the lender's current published material, respond within five working days, and correct the entry where the dispute is upheld. Where we disagree with the lender's position, we tell them why in writing. A rating is not changed simply because a lender asks; it is changed where the underlying data supports the change. Material corrections are logged in the page footer, the same as any other correction on the site.