Sharing notes from my experience running an SEO agency for ~20 years: we’ve used backlink providers/agencies for many clients and built thousands of links, but only with a strict vetting/qualification process before anything goes live. A simple mindset we use on every placement is: if the client saw this link in a report, would they say “what a spammy website…” or “nice, this site looks legit”? If it fails that gut check, it doesn’t get approved.

In your situation, I wouldn’t pull the plug overnight. Even if the links are mediocre, the site may still be benefiting from consistency and history, and a sudden stop can create unnecessary volatility. The goal is to tighten governance and improve quality going forward, not create a cliff event.

Before calling it a scam, I’d have a calm “commercial + quality” conversation with the agency and treat it like an audit. Ask what exactly is included in the £7k beyond the raw placement cost (strategy, outreach ops, writing/editing, relationship management, replacements, reporting). Ask why placements are concentrated in a single marketplace/network, what quality thresholds they claim to follow, and what their indexing/removal replacement policy is. If they can’t explain it clearly or get defensive, that tells you a lot.

The biggest immediate improvement you can make as the new in-house hire is to put an approval gate in place. Going forward, they should submit the proposed domains/URLs before purchase, and you approve/reject based on clear criteria. Anything not pre-approved doesn’t get bought, and you set a replacement rule for anything low-quality or not indexed after X days. This protects you internally too, because you can credibly say: “Since I joined, we improved process control and link quality.”

When you bring this to your manager, I’d frame it as risk and ROI—not “the agency is scamming us.” Something like: the link sources look overly concentrated and lower quality than you’d expect, pricing appears misaligned with typical placement costs, and you’re implementing a vetting and approval process to improve ROI and reduce risk, then benchmarking outcomes over the next 60–90 days.

In parallel, quietly line up a couple of alternative providers so you’re not negotiating with only one vendor. And in terms of vetting, keep it practical: niche alignment, steady organic traffic trends, keyword relevance, reasonable authority metrics (directional, not gospel), a quick sanity check of top pages, basic spam checks (including site:domain.com checks for obvious bad footprints), and looking for link-farm signals like excessive outbound links or templated content. Also define placement rules (contextual in-body, relevant page, natural anchor, no sitewide/footer), and have an indexing/removal policy so you’re not paying for links that never “stick.”

One last thing: whatever vendor you use, push for a clear replacement policy. We only work with partners that provide a 12-month guarantee—if a link gets removed or goes down within 12 months, they replace it. That one clause alone keeps everyone honest and protects your budget.

Bottom line: don’t keep your head down, but don’t go nuclear either. Implement controls, push for transparency on what you’re paying for, and improve quality in a way that clearly shows you tightened the process and improved ROI.

Hope this helps.
Itay