Technical SEO fixes that reach the live site

Crawling and indexation, site architecture and internal linking, page speed and Core Web Vitals, structured data, redirects and canonicals, and the way JavaScript affects what Google can see. The common thread is everything that decides whether your pages can compete, as distinct from how persuasive they are once someone arrives.

An audit is a defined piece of diagnostic work that ends in a document. Technical SEO is the ongoing job of finding and fixing the problems, including the ones that reappear after a site change. Audits are available from £795 where a one-off diagnosis is what you need; the retainer exists because most technical debt is not cleared in a single pass.

Two monthly plans, priced by scope rather than by whether you already own a website. Local is £495 a month and covers one location and the local searches around it. Growth is £995 a month and covers more services, more locations or more competitive terms. Where you already have a website worth keeping there is no build to fund, so Growth is £895 a month and the minimum term is six months rather than 12. Technical work forms part of the monthly scope either way. Where the site's problems are structural enough that rebuilding is cheaper than repairing, the build sits inside the plan with no upfront fee. Prices are the full amount payable; no VAT is added on top.

Often yes, though for different reasons than large ones. Small sites rarely have crawl budget problems, but they very commonly have indexation gaps, weak internal linking and pages competing with each other for the same term. Those are technical problems and they cap what any amount of content work can achieve.

Implement, wherever access allows. That is the point of the retainer. Where a client's own developer owns deployment, changes are specified precisely and staged for their review instead, and we work to their release process rather than around it.

Indexation and crawl fixes can show within weeks, because you are removing a blocker, not earning authority. Speed and structure improvements are slower and usually show as gradual position movement rather than a step change. Recrawl timing sets the floor: Google has to come back and look before anything you changed can count.

Yes, though with a caveat worth stating. Core Web Vitals are a real ranking input but a weak one compared with relevance and authority. Fixing a slow site is worth doing for conversion regardless, and it removes an excuse, but a fast page about the wrong topic still will not rank. Speed work is sequenced accordingly rather than led with.

Yes, and this is where technical SEO earns its keep most obviously. Migrations lose traffic through broken redirect maps, changed URL structures and dropped metadata, and the damage is far cheaper to prevent than to recover. Involving us before the launch date is set is considerably more useful than afterwards.

It helps machines parse a page reliably, which matters more now that AI Overviews and assistants summarise pages rather than just link them. Service and FAQ schema are implemented as standard across the pages we work on. It is not a ranking shortcut, but being unambiguous about what a page says is worth more than it used to be.

Through indexation counts, crawl statistics and position movement on the terms being targeted, not through an audit score. Tools that grade a site out of a hundred are useful for finding issues and close to meaningless as a measure of progress, since the score can improve while nothing commercially relevant changes.