Gutter Plus:
19 referrals in five weeks.
Between 6 July and 11 August 2026 our system delivered 19 referrals to one company: Gutter Plus, in Surrey. 14 of them landed inside the first fortnight, 6 to 19 July. Every one was confirmed against the five published checks before it was sent. Two kinds of evidence sit on this page and they are kept apart: what our system recorded, and what the client reports. Nothing is blended.
Who is
Gutter Plus?
A guttering company in Surrey, holding 5.0 stars from 29 Google reviews, verified through the Google Places API on 6 July 2026. It holds one area on our network, which means the consumer brand we run in that patch gives a homeowner one name and no list.
Gutter Plus fits seamless aluminium guttering. Homeowners do not go looking for that phrase. They go looking when water is running down a wall in November, and they go looking fast. So the job was to build the brand they find at that moment, and to answer them before anyone else does.
A WhatsApp assistant picks the conversation up straight away and does the qualifying a receptionist would do if anyone had time to: what the job is, in the homeowner’s own words, when they want it done, and whether the job is still open. Then five published checks stand between that conversation and Richard’s phone. Fail one, and the referral is not sent and not billed. Pass all five, and it goes to exactly one company in that area.
That last part is the whole difference. A Checkatrade enquiry is shared with 10-20+ trades, so every buyer is paying for a place in the same race. These 19 went to one company.
Tier 1 · our system record · our delivery CRM, queried 12 August 2026
What did our
system record?
19 referrals delivered, 6 July to 11 August 2026. Every one carries the timestamp of the moment it was sent, which is why these dates are ours to prove rather than ours to claim.
| System record | Count | Dated |
|---|---|---|
| Referrals delivered | 19 | 6 Jul to 11 Aug 2026 |
| Delivered in the first fortnight | 14 of 19 | 6 Jul to 19 Jul 2026 |
| Survey booked, recorded in our CRM | 3 | At time of query, 12 Aug 2026 |
| Quoted | 2 | At time of query, 12 Aug 2026 |
| Call booked | 2 | At time of query, 12 Aug 2026 |
| Lost | 1 | At time of query, 12 Aug 2026 |
| Open | 11 | At time of query, 12 Aug 2026 |
| Confirmed against the five published checks | 19 of 19 | Every referral |
The burst is in the timestamps. 14 of the 19 arrived in the first fourteen days, 6 to 19 July.
The stage column is what our own CRM held on 12 August 2026. It is a record of what we can see, and it is not a record of what the business closed. A survey gets booked on a phone call. Work gets agreed standing in a driveway. Neither of those writes itself back into our system, so the next section belongs to Richard, not to us.
Tier 2 · reported by the client
What does Richard report?
Richard reports 8 surveys booked and over £10,000 in work from these referrals.
Confirmed to us by Richard West of Gutter Plus on 12 August 2026. We have not audited his books, and we do not present those two figures as our own measurement.
How do we separate
our numbers from his?
By source, on every line. Our CRM timestamps every referral the moment it is sent, so delivery, dates and the five checks are ours to prove and we state them flatly.
Outcomes work the other way. Our CRM shows 3 survey-booked and no jobs marked won, and the values sitting on those records are banded estimates, not invoiced amounts. Richard reports 8 surveys booked and over £10,000 in work. Both of those sentences are true, and they are true about different things: one is what our system saw, the other is what the business lived.
So we publish both, side by side, instead of folding them into a single number. Blending is what makes most case studies in this market worthless. One unsourced figure cannot be traced back to a system or to a person, and the reader is left deciding whether to believe an adjective. Split the evidence and there is nothing left to take on faith: one column has timestamps, the other has a name on it.
It also sets the standard we would like to be judged against. If a competitor publishes a case study, the fair question is which of their numbers came out of a system and which came out of a conversation. We have answered it here before anyone asked, in the same spirit as The Referral Standard. If you want Richard’s side of it first hand, ask us and we will ask him.
What did it cost him?
We do not publish what a partner pays us. A fee is a commercial term, not evidence, and putting a client’s spend on a public page would say more about our price list than about whether the referrals worked.
What we will say is how it is priced: per area, depending on the trade and the territory. No retainer, no lock-in on referral supply, and you pay only for referrals that passed the five checks. The specific number for a specific patch comes back when you check whether your area is open.
What should you ask
about this record?
19 referrals, 14 in the first fortnight, one company. Every answer below says which side of the line the evidence sits on.
Are these numbers verified?
Why do you separate your numbers from the client’s?
Can I speak to Richard?
What did Gutter Plus get that a directory would not?
What does a referral like this cost?
Is your area
still open?
Gutter Plus holds one area. Yours is either open or it is not, and we tell you straight. Every referral passes five published checks; fails one, it is not sent and you are not billed.