A proposal submitted to West Oxfordshire District Council has revealed the former charity shop at 6 Market Place in the Cotswolds town may become a wine ‘cellar’.

Plans include adding a dark green retractable awning, a hanging street sign and new signage and lighting on the three-storey stone building.

READ MORE: Bicester crash: Motorcyclist ‘seriously injured’ in hospital

The text on the awning would read: “Chipping Norton Cellars, proudly independent wine merchants” along with signage promoting wine, beer, spirits and events on the shop front.

A company of the same name was incorporated on March 25 this year, according to the public register.

The planning application for the changes to the shopfront are currently under consideration with West Oxfordshire District Council, with a decision expected by May 14.

Chartered accountancy firm Ridgefield Consulting says that mixing business and leisure on the same trip is increasing confusion about what can legitimately be claimed.

The firm warns that, with increased scrutiny from HM Revenue & Customs, mistakes can lead to penalties, interest on unpaid tax or even further investigation.

Where a trip is undertaken solely for business purposes, costs such as travel, accommodation, subsistence and conference fees may be allowable, provided they are incurred “wholly and exclusively” for the purposes of the trade.

READ MORE: ‘A red kite stole sausage rolls from my mother-in-law’

However, once any personal element is introduced – for example, extending a stay or taking family members along – the position becomes more complex and not all costs will remain deductible.

Flights are one common flashpoint, with only the proportion attributable to business use normally claimable if a trip includes both work and holiday time.

Hotel bills must also be split, with additional nights for leisure funded privately and any apportionment carried out on a reasonable basis.

Family members may accompany a business traveller, but their travel and accommodation costs are treated as personal expenditure and should be excluded from business claims.

READ MORE: Old Oxfordshire prep school with seven bedrooms for sale at £1.9m

Subsistence is generally allowable only where it arises because of business travel to a temporary or irregular place of work, not for entertainment or non‑essential dining.

Ridgefield Consulting says the practical difficulty lies less in the rules themselves and more in applying them when trips blend work and leisure.

The firm advises business owners to establish and document the primary purpose of each trip before booking, clearly identifying the meetings, conferences or client engagements involved.

Any planned personal time should be recorded separately from the outset to make it easier to distinguish between business and private costs later.

READ MORE: Music legend and wife have drink at Jeremy Clarkson’s Cotswolds pub

It also recommends separating costs in real time rather than retrospectively, allocating flights, accommodation and subsistence between business and leisure as they are incurred.

Accurate records, including invoices and notes of business activity, help to strengthen the audit trail if HMRC reviews expense claims.

Managing director Simon Thomas said: “Many business owners understand that travel costs can be claimed when incurred for business purposes.

“However, as we move further into a hybrid working world, where trips increasingly combine both business and leisure, the distinction between allowable and non‑allowable expenses is becoming less clear.

READ MORE: Armed police officers chase after masked men across Oxfordshire

“This lack of clarity not only raises the risk of incorrectly claimed expenses but also increases the likelihood of fines or, in the worst-case scenario, HMRC investigations.

“A common misconception is that the presence of a business meeting or event allows the entire trip to be treated as deductible.

“In reality, only costs that are directly attributable to business activity can be claimed.

“Where personal elements are introduced, it is essential that costs are clearly separated and documented to ensure compliance and unexpected tax liabilities.”

With more businesses moving onto Making Tax Digital and reporting more frequently, Ridgefield Consulting says clear separation of business and personal costs, accurate apportionment and robust record‑keeping are increasingly important to avoid problems with HMRC.

Mid-sized fintech firms are disappearing as funding tightens, reshaping the sector around larger platforms and earlier-stage startups.

The pressure is hitting companies that raised Series B to Series D funding, built working products and acquired customers, but have not reached the scale of market leaders. They are caught between investor demands for clearer paths to sustainable revenue and rising operating costs driven by regulation and competition.

During the low-interest-rate period of 2020 and 2021, many fintech groups expanded quickly as venture capital flowed freely. Investors prioritised growth over profitability, and companies hired aggressively to win market share. That backdrop has reversed. Higher rates and weaker risk appetite have pushed investors towards businesses with stronger margins, more predictable income or clear market dominance.

The result is a squeeze on what some investors and founders describe as fintech’s middle tier. Smaller startups can still attract capital for new ideas, while larger companies can rely on scale and established revenue streams. Firms in between often need fresh funding to keep growing, yet face greater scrutiny over whether that growth can deliver acceptable returns.

Recent closures

Several recent UK shutdowns illustrate the pressure on this group. Payments app VibePay entered voluntary liquidation in early 2026 after a proposed acquisition collapsed and investor backing was withdrawn. The business had raised more than GBP £12 million and built a user base around open banking payments.

SmartLayer, focused on AI-based home finance infrastructure, also closed after three years, despite having worked with a major bank on product development. Another consumer fintech, Zero, ceased trading after failing to secure further funding, despite attracting tens of thousands of users.

These businesses had products in the market, active users and, in some cases, institutional relationships. Their closures point to broader structural pressure rather than isolated operational mistakes.

Capital shift

Investment has shifted towards fewer, larger deals. Backers are concentrating capital in companies that can already show scale, profitability or both, leaving less support for firms seeking incremental expansion after their initial product launch and first wave of customer growth.

That has narrowed the viable paths for mid-sized fintech groups. Some grow into larger platforms. Others are sold to bigger players seeking technology, licences or customer bases. A rising number are pushed into restructuring, strategic pivots or closure.

Investor preference has also moved towards financial infrastructure rather than consumer-facing applications. Payment rails, compliance software and financial application programming interfaces are attracting interest because they tend to generate steadier business-to-business revenue and are more deeply embedded in financial systems.

By contrast, many mid-tier fintech companies operate mainly through front-end apps. They compete on user experience and brand, which can require heavy marketing spend and make it harder to defend margins. As capital shifts towards infrastructure, these application-led businesses risk losing investor attention.

Regulatory burden

Regulation is adding to the strain. As fintech companies grow, they face stricter oversight and higher compliance costs. Large operators can spread those costs across bigger revenue bases, while early-stage startups often remain below key regulatory thresholds for longer.

Mid-sized firms are more exposed. They may face the full burden of compliance without the financial resources of larger rivals. That makes scaling more expensive, just as investors demand stronger evidence of efficiency and profit discipline.

Artificial intelligence is intensifying the divide. Bigger firms can use automation across customer service, compliance and risk management to lower costs. Startups can build AI-native products without the legacy cost structures of more established businesses.

Companies in the middle often have existing teams and systems that are costlier to adapt. At the same time, AI is making many consumer-facing features easier to replicate, from budgeting tools to transaction categorisation and financial insights. That weakens businesses that once stood out on product features alone.

Fewer exits

Exit options have also narrowed. Public listings have become less common for this part of the market, partly because weaker conditions make it harder to justify the valuations secured in earlier funding rounds. That has reduced flexibility for founders and investors and increased pressure to pursue trade sales or internal restructuring.

The broader result is a more concentrated market. At one end are large fintech platforms such as Revolut and Wise, which continue to expand their product ranges and customer bases. At the other end are newer startups testing niche ideas or targeting specific market gaps.

Between those poles, the number of viable independent companies is shrinking. Fintech innovation continues, but the room for a business to remain sustainably mid-sized is getting smaller.

The sector is becoming more polarised, with fewer companies able to stay in the middle.