A short, direct list that separates a real supplier from a lead mill. Ask all of them on the first call, and note which ones produce hesitation.
This is the short version of supplier due diligence: the questions that fit in one phone call, ordered so the most revealing come early.
| Question | What it tests |
|---|---|
| Which domain did this enquiry come from, and can I see it now? | Whether they own the source |
| How many buyers receive each record, contractually? | What exclusivity actually means here |
| Is exclusivity permanent, or a number of days? | Whether recycling is built in |
| What verification runs, and at what point in the form? | Whether verification is real or nominal |
| How long from consumer submission to delivery to me? | Whether records are stale on arrival |
| How does the record reach my system? | Whether your response time is achievable |
| What is your written definition of an invalid record? | Whether replacements are a right or a favour |
| Is there a cap or quota on replacements? | Whether the policy is usable |
| Which legal entity is on the invoice? | Who you would actually be contracting with |
| What did the consumer see about onward supply to a broker? | Your own privacy and consent position |
The tell that matters most: Watch which question produces the pause. A supplier who answers nine fluently and hesitates on one has told you where the weakness is more precisely than any answer would have.
Because the Fair Trading Act 1986 prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct and unsubstantiated representations, and requires a trader to hold reasonable grounds for a claim at the time the claim is made. Trader intent is irrelevant, so a written answer that turns out to be wrong is a representation rather than a misunderstanding.
Send a short summary email after the call listing the answers you were given and asking them to confirm. A supplier who will not confirm in writing what they said on a call has answered a further question.
Specific and slightly dull. Facts, numbers, a URL sent while you are still talking, and comfort with a small trial because they expect it to go well.
How Lead Foundry answers this: Enquiries come from QuoteHub, which we own and can show you. Each goes to one broker with no expiry, verification is an SMS code inside the form flow, delivery is into your CRM, and you set the invalidity criteria before supply starts.
Which domain the enquiry came from and whether you can see the live page, how many buyers receive each record contractually, whether exclusivity is permanent or a number of days, what verification runs and at what point in the form, how long from submission to delivery, how it reaches your system, the written definition of an invalid record, whether replacements are capped, which legal entity is on the invoice, and what the consumer was told about onward supply.
Answers that describe a policy when you asked about a record, redirects to price when you asked about product, "typically" where you asked for a contractual maximum, repeated "let me check" on facts about their own operation, and reluctance to name the contracting entity. Which question produces the pause is more informative than the answers.
Yes. Under the Fair Trading Act 1986 a trader must hold reasonable grounds for a claim at the time it is made, and intent is irrelevant, so a written answer is a representation rather than a recollection. Send a summary email after the call and ask them to confirm it.
Send me the live URL of the page this enquiry came from. An operator who owns their consumer brand sends it in the same reply because it is their own website. One buying traffic from an affiliate network frequently cannot produce it, which answers a much larger question about who controls the quality of what you are buying.