This the guestbook. You can make your comments here. It is moderated, which means that your comments will NOT be published until they have been checked by the editorial staff first.
Relatively new to the FP saga
I have recently taken on the role of assisting around 30 elderly residents in the retirement block where my mother lives. I have been appalled at the incompetence and bad behaviour of the middle and upper management. It is very likely that we will end up with FTT actions but not sure about RTM as there’s a significant number of residents who are scared of the unknown. I’ve joined the FB group but it seems a bit short on solid expertise in how to fight back. This seems like a more focused group. Is it ok to sit in for a bit and observe? I may have questions later. Cheers, K
Posted by Kieran on 26 April 2024
You are very welcome Kieran.
In large measure Firstport rely on keeping residents in ignorance of how they are being cheated and the understandable fear residents have of going RTM.
Many residents are elderly and vulnerable and Firstport ruthlessly exploit this. Were it to be a case of the odd administrative error or lack of good service that would be one thing that could afflict any managing agent but this exploitation of residents is a deliberate act at board room level with junior staff "encouraged" to identify new revenue streams.
The two main fears of conducting a RTM are the complexity of undertaking the RTM and the notion that residents would have to manage the development for themselves.
Is an RTM complex? Technically yes in that the process has to be done properly to succeed. That is why it is recommended residents appoint an agent to carry out the RTM on their behalf. Typically the cost will be between £50-£100 per flat. Remember that agent is an expert in the procedure and if the procedure is carried out properly the RTM will succeed without challenge. The point of an RTM is that it is a right not subject to challenge from the managing agent.
When an RTM has been achieved the residents simply sit down together to appoint another managing agent of their choosing.
Before embarking on a RTM action residents should visit local developments that are not managed by Firstport and find out if those residents are happy with their appointed managing agents? Word and mouth recommendation is always the best.
When a new agent takes over the handover period begins. Any current services continue as is the majority of the development funds are transferred with some being held back for a couple of months to pay ongoing invoices.
It is important to stress that having appointed a managing agent, that agent assumes all the responsibilities of managing the development, so residents need not be in fear of extra responsibilities.
Indeed the only "extra" would be for the Right to Manage company to hold one meeting a year to elect directors and to discuss/re-appoint the managing agent.
If they so choose they have the right to place the development insurance which knocks out the up to 40% undeclared insurance commissions the freeholder is helping themselves to?
The average saving after carrying out an RTM is around the 30% mark but the peace of mind knowing that the imposed on the resident, managing agent is not systemically cheating them is beyond price!
In large measure Firstport rely on keeping residents in ignorance of how they are being cheated and the understandable fear residents have of going RTM.
Many residents are elderly and vulnerable and Firstport ruthlessly exploit this. Were it to be a case of the odd administrative error or lack of good service that would be one thing that could afflict any managing agent but this exploitation of residents is a deliberate act at board room level with junior staff "encouraged" to identify new revenue streams.
The two main fears of conducting a RTM are the complexity of undertaking the RTM and the notion that residents would have to manage the development for themselves.
Is an RTM complex? Technically yes in that the process has to be done properly to succeed. That is why it is recommended residents appoint an agent to carry out the RTM on their behalf. Typically the cost will be between £50-£100 per flat. Remember that agent is an expert in the procedure and if the procedure is carried out properly the RTM will succeed without challenge. The point of an RTM is that it is a right not subject to challenge from the managing agent.
When an RTM has been achieved the residents simply sit down together to appoint another managing agent of their choosing.
Before embarking on a RTM action residents should visit local developments that are not managed by Firstport and find out if those residents are happy with their appointed managing agents? Word and mouth recommendation is always the best.
When a new agent takes over the handover period begins. Any current services continue as is the majority of the development funds are transferred with some being held back for a couple of months to pay ongoing invoices.
It is important to stress that having appointed a managing agent, that agent assumes all the responsibilities of managing the development, so residents need not be in fear of extra responsibilities.
Indeed the only "extra" would be for the Right to Manage company to hold one meeting a year to elect directors and to discuss/re-appoint the managing agent.
If they so choose they have the right to place the development insurance which knocks out the up to 40% undeclared insurance commissions the freeholder is helping themselves to?
The average saving after carrying out an RTM is around the 30% mark but the peace of mind knowing that the imposed on the resident, managing agent is not systemically cheating them is beyond price!
Posted by The Editor on 26 April 2024
KIERAN
We went RTM last year in November, and have new Managing Agents to do the work for us.
Apart from still being owed money by FirstPort, life has changed so very much, and we are very happy. Well worth the effort. The Editors post is spot on.
We went RTM last year in November, and have new Managing Agents to do the work for us.
Apart from still being owed money by FirstPort, life has changed so very much, and we are very happy. Well worth the effort. The Editors post is spot on.
Posted by on 26 April 2024
KIeran
I should have mentioned that Michael E was instrumental in helping us get rid of FP. He will be able to advise you and help you make a decision.
Do it now , no time like the present to start enjoying the freedom that you will have.
I should have mentioned that Michael E was instrumental in helping us get rid of FP. He will be able to advise you and help you make a decision.
Do it now , no time like the present to start enjoying the freedom that you will have.
Posted by RUTH on 26 April 2024
Kieran,
The Editors advice and guidance is second to none.
We achieved RTM in early 2022 and have benefited from three consecutive years of service charge reductions whilst increasing the reserve fund at the same time.
Glad to assist you If I can?
The Editors advice and guidance is second to none.
We achieved RTM in early 2022 and have benefited from three consecutive years of service charge reductions whilst increasing the reserve fund at the same time.
Glad to assist you If I can?
Posted by Stephen Burns on 26 April 2024
Erroneous Accounting
Chandlers Court (Cambridgeshire) is a purpose-built block of 24 flats with maintenance services provided by FirstPort. The Regional Manager is Mr Lee Farley.
The Accounts for the financial year ending 24th June 2023 were released on the 20th December 2023 and revealed a deficit balance of £2887.20 which resulted in the leaseholders each having to pay a levy of £120.30.
Three weeks prior to the release of the accounts I managed, after multiple requests, to acquire a copy of the ‘Analysis of Service Charge Expenditure’ spreadsheet. It did not take long to identify the following discrepancies between figures presented in the Service Charge Expenditure Sheet and the corresponding figures in the Accounts:
Expenditure Sheet Accounts Difference
Electricity £1058.35 £1262.87 £204.52
Communal Area Cleaning £1581.00 £1997.00 £416.00
Grounds Maintenance £4405.80 £5294.14 £888.34
Audit Fees £320.00 £430.00 £110.00
Prior Year Items - £117.00 £117.00
Thus, the Accounts were showing several unexplained additional sums, when compared to Service Charge Expenditure, totalling £1735.86.
When I queried these discrepancies (02nd Jan 2024 and five subsequent emails), I was eventually informed by Mr Farley (16th Jan 2024), that ‘My understanding is that the version you have been looking at is not the final version’. I later ascertained that he was referring to the Analysis of Service Charge Expenditure spreadsheet.
Naturally I requested, and received, a copy of the ‘updated’ Expenditure spreadsheet only to identify the presence of four bogus invoices and suspicious increases of two existing entries which, together, ensured parity of the figures with those in the Accounts. Thus, the ‘updated’ Service Charge Expenditure accounted for the additional £1736 with the following:
(i) Increasing the estimated cost of electricity for the last five weeks of the financial year from a perfectly acceptable £99 to a ridiculously inflated £304.
(ii) Bogus invoices from a contractor (£266.5 x 2 plus £444 x 2) totalling £1421.
(iii) Inflating the ’estimated’ cost of the Account audit by 34% (i.e. from £320 for the previous year to £430).
Totalling up we get £205 + £266.50 + £266.50 + £444 + £444 + £110 = £1736
When I queried the above, with multiple emails over a period of nine weeks, Mr Farley eventually admitted that the bogus invoices were a ‘mistake’ and agreed to refund the leaseholders, which he did on the 04th April 2024.
However, he seemed to think that the estimated cost of electricity for the last five weeks of the financial year (£304) was reasonable and stated that ‘I do not believe a refund is necessary’.
With regards to the Audit Fee, Mr Farley stated that ‘The audit fee is set by the supplier and the cost is in line with expected market rates’ but, despite multiple requests, I have yet to receive copies of the Audit Report and the corresponding invoice!!!!!
When I requested that FirstPort issue a revised and accurate set of Accounts to all leaseholders and provide me with a revised and accurate Service Charge Expenditure spreadsheet Mr Farley stated ‘FirstPort do not issue revised accounts any amendments are usually carried over into the next financial reporting period, this is due to the cost associated with the work to reissue revised accounts and due to the fact FirstPort do not reissue revised accounts the service charge expenditure sheet will not be altered.’
I advised Mr Farley that under the International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs (UK)) including ISA (UK) 800, the Landlord & Tenant Acts 1985 & 1987 and the provisions of the lease that FirstPort are obliged to issue an accurate and honest set of accounts.
I asked Mr Farley to explain why FirstPort have not demanded a return of the audit fee from the Auditor given that it was a complete travesty and was not carried out in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs (UK)) including ISA (UK) 800 and, as a consequence, I demanded that FirstPort refund the fees for both Accounts Preparation and Audit since neither were undertaken according to basic accounting principles and, without my intervention, would have resulted in the misappropriation of leaseholder funds?
Mr Farley stated that ‘FirstPort will not refund the fees for both the accounts preparation and audit because as I have explained the duplication of grounds maintenance would not be something the accountants or the auditors would be aware of, the Property Manager at the time should have noticed this duplication.’
I pointed out that I was aware of the duplication of Grounds Maintenance (and Communal Area Cleaning) and reiterated my demand for a refund of both fees.
The Accounts for the financial year ending 24th June 2023 were released on the 20th December 2023 and revealed a deficit balance of £2887.20 which resulted in the leaseholders each having to pay a levy of £120.30.
Three weeks prior to the release of the accounts I managed, after multiple requests, to acquire a copy of the ‘Analysis of Service Charge Expenditure’ spreadsheet. It did not take long to identify the following discrepancies between figures presented in the Service Charge Expenditure Sheet and the corresponding figures in the Accounts:
Expenditure Sheet Accounts Difference
Electricity £1058.35 £1262.87 £204.52
Communal Area Cleaning £1581.00 £1997.00 £416.00
Grounds Maintenance £4405.80 £5294.14 £888.34
Audit Fees £320.00 £430.00 £110.00
Prior Year Items - £117.00 £117.00
Thus, the Accounts were showing several unexplained additional sums, when compared to Service Charge Expenditure, totalling £1735.86.
When I queried these discrepancies (02nd Jan 2024 and five subsequent emails), I was eventually informed by Mr Farley (16th Jan 2024), that ‘My understanding is that the version you have been looking at is not the final version’. I later ascertained that he was referring to the Analysis of Service Charge Expenditure spreadsheet.
Naturally I requested, and received, a copy of the ‘updated’ Expenditure spreadsheet only to identify the presence of four bogus invoices and suspicious increases of two existing entries which, together, ensured parity of the figures with those in the Accounts. Thus, the ‘updated’ Service Charge Expenditure accounted for the additional £1736 with the following:
(i) Increasing the estimated cost of electricity for the last five weeks of the financial year from a perfectly acceptable £99 to a ridiculously inflated £304.
(ii) Bogus invoices from a contractor (£266.5 x 2 plus £444 x 2) totalling £1421.
(iii) Inflating the ’estimated’ cost of the Account audit by 34% (i.e. from £320 for the previous year to £430).
Totalling up we get £205 + £266.50 + £266.50 + £444 + £444 + £110 = £1736
When I queried the above, with multiple emails over a period of nine weeks, Mr Farley eventually admitted that the bogus invoices were a ‘mistake’ and agreed to refund the leaseholders, which he did on the 04th April 2024.
However, he seemed to think that the estimated cost of electricity for the last five weeks of the financial year (£304) was reasonable and stated that ‘I do not believe a refund is necessary’.
With regards to the Audit Fee, Mr Farley stated that ‘The audit fee is set by the supplier and the cost is in line with expected market rates’ but, despite multiple requests, I have yet to receive copies of the Audit Report and the corresponding invoice!!!!!
When I requested that FirstPort issue a revised and accurate set of Accounts to all leaseholders and provide me with a revised and accurate Service Charge Expenditure spreadsheet Mr Farley stated ‘FirstPort do not issue revised accounts any amendments are usually carried over into the next financial reporting period, this is due to the cost associated with the work to reissue revised accounts and due to the fact FirstPort do not reissue revised accounts the service charge expenditure sheet will not be altered.’
I advised Mr Farley that under the International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs (UK)) including ISA (UK) 800, the Landlord & Tenant Acts 1985 & 1987 and the provisions of the lease that FirstPort are obliged to issue an accurate and honest set of accounts.
I asked Mr Farley to explain why FirstPort have not demanded a return of the audit fee from the Auditor given that it was a complete travesty and was not carried out in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs (UK)) including ISA (UK) 800 and, as a consequence, I demanded that FirstPort refund the fees for both Accounts Preparation and Audit since neither were undertaken according to basic accounting principles and, without my intervention, would have resulted in the misappropriation of leaseholder funds?
Mr Farley stated that ‘FirstPort will not refund the fees for both the accounts preparation and audit because as I have explained the duplication of grounds maintenance would not be something the accountants or the auditors would be aware of, the Property Manager at the time should have noticed this duplication.’
I pointed out that I was aware of the duplication of Grounds Maintenance (and Communal Area Cleaning) and reiterated my demand for a refund of both fees.
Posted by Bill Fox on 20 April 2024
My attempt to copy & paste from Word turned out to be somewhat problematic but I hope you can still make sense of my comment.
Posted by Bill Fox on 20 April 2024
When are we going to see regulation of managing agents? Have you thought of complaining about the Accountants to ICAEW?
Posted by on 21 April 2024
Bill,
A brilliant explanation of a complex issue that afflicts every Firstport managed development. A forensic audit of development accounts often conducted by a RMC on taking over the management of a development from Firtsport have found a series of "errors" resulting in thousands of pounds having to be repaid.
A brilliant explanation of a complex issue that afflicts every Firstport managed development. A forensic audit of development accounts often conducted by a RMC on taking over the management of a development from Firtsport have found a series of "errors" resulting in thousands of pounds having to be repaid.
Posted by The Editor on 21 April 2024
That the formal regulation of managing agents has been left out merely continues the sheer misery unregulated managing agents inflict on leaseholders.
It also unfairly tarnishes the many good managing agents who operate in a proper and professional manner.
Doubtless regulation has been swerved to assist the largest managing agents who could not come close to complying with the most basic of enforceable regulations never mind being able to post any kind of bond to trade as happens with the travel industry.
It also unfairly tarnishes the many good managing agents who operate in a proper and professional manner.
Doubtless regulation has been swerved to assist the largest managing agents who could not come close to complying with the most basic of enforceable regulations never mind being able to post any kind of bond to trade as happens with the travel industry.
Posted by Michael Epstein on 21 April 2024
“ When are we going to see regulation of managing agents”? When leaseholders take to the streets in their tens of thousands.
Posted by Kim on 21 April 2024
Michael,
You have "hit the nail on the head" with regard for the need to effectively regulate managing agents.
The continuation of the status quo will cause even more harm to this sector of the housing market, the evidence is out their and is common knowledge amongst the masses.
The implementation of effective regulation of managing agents and the introduction of Commonhold in the United Kingdom will, in my opinion, will result in a significant increase in new build property's of all descriptions, and all the associated benefits in terms of economic growth, property ownership and business expansion for managing agents and all associated and connected trades.
By Law Leaseholders will have access to factual audited accounts and will receive a quality service from those of the right calibre who meet or exceed the basic Legal minimum standard.
The current "as is" is preventing the above from becoming a reality in my view.
it seems to me that the Government has missed a golden opportunity to effectively stimulate the property market by the simple introduction of the most basic kind of enforceable regulation.
"Fixing Our Broken Housing Market" was a real eye opener lessons learned Government 0, Leaseholders 5,000,000 +(estimate).
Hold on tight to you "seat".
You have "hit the nail on the head" with regard for the need to effectively regulate managing agents.
The continuation of the status quo will cause even more harm to this sector of the housing market, the evidence is out their and is common knowledge amongst the masses.
The implementation of effective regulation of managing agents and the introduction of Commonhold in the United Kingdom will, in my opinion, will result in a significant increase in new build property's of all descriptions, and all the associated benefits in terms of economic growth, property ownership and business expansion for managing agents and all associated and connected trades.
By Law Leaseholders will have access to factual audited accounts and will receive a quality service from those of the right calibre who meet or exceed the basic Legal minimum standard.
The current "as is" is preventing the above from becoming a reality in my view.
it seems to me that the Government has missed a golden opportunity to effectively stimulate the property market by the simple introduction of the most basic kind of enforceable regulation.
"Fixing Our Broken Housing Market" was a real eye opener lessons learned Government 0, Leaseholders 5,000,000 +(estimate).
Hold on tight to you "seat".
Posted by Stephen Burns on 21 April 2024
Bill
We done. One further important step now and in the future is to get a breakdown of sundry debtors and sundry creditors, this is where things get hidden. You will hope this refund is actually made into your account before 30/6/24 but if that doesn't happen it appears in sundry debtors for this year. you will not see that until, say, December 2024.That way, errors in 2022/23 are not actually back in your account even in 2024.
We done. One further important step now and in the future is to get a breakdown of sundry debtors and sundry creditors, this is where things get hidden. You will hope this refund is actually made into your account before 30/6/24 but if that doesn't happen it appears in sundry debtors for this year. you will not see that until, say, December 2024.That way, errors in 2022/23 are not actually back in your account even in 2024.
Posted by Zocco on 22 April 2024
If Firstport have agreed they have overcharged residents and have offered a credit to the service charge development accounts do not accept it under any circumstances. Insist on your right to have what you are owed paid directly to you. After all it is only giving you your money back. It also means that Firstport have to physically issue a refund cheque from their own account. If you insist on a payment to you, and they fail to pay, off to the small claims court go you!
Posted by Michael Epstein on 22 April 2024
Michael E, I could not agree more.
I am owed £6,144 from a freehold compsny of which I am a shareholder. I have been offered a “ credit”. I said no and sent a formal letter stating I want MY money.7 days passed. It’s off to the small claims court…..
I am owed £6,144 from a freehold compsny of which I am a shareholder. I have been offered a “ credit”. I said no and sent a formal letter stating I want MY money.7 days passed. It’s off to the small claims court…..
Posted by Ki on 22 April 2024
And at the small claims court, you do not even have to prove the debt as that has already ben admitted. It is simply a question of having admitted the debt it has not been paid.
Of course it should also be noted that whilst a "credit" may appear on a personal service charge statement without proper sight of accounts and bank statements there is no way to tell if it is just a credit appearing on the statement and that actual money has been transferred?
Of course it should also be noted that whilst a "credit" may appear on a personal service charge statement without proper sight of accounts and bank statements there is no way to tell if it is just a credit appearing on the statement and that actual money has been transferred?
Posted by Michael Epstein on 23 April 2024
An Overcharge In Every Port!
Spare a thought for residents of Crest Nicholson built Firstport managed Port Marine in Bristol.
It is a high end
luxury development in one of the most expensive areas in Bristol. Unfortunately as is all too common with developers Crest Nicholson sold off the communal areas which resulted in having Firstport imposed on them as managing agent with all the overcharges that Firstport are associated with.
However, to their credit on the transfer back in 2011 Crest Nicholson made an agreement with Firstport that rent charges would be restricted to £1 per year. Of course Firstport charged some residents much more than the £1, which after a battle agreed that this was due to an administrative error and refunded the extra payments.
Roll forward to 2023. After accepting £1 per year rent charge payments from 2011 one of Firstport's eagle eyed legal team noticed that though there had been an agreement for a £1 per year charge, a deed of variation had not been carried out, rendering the agreement invalid.
And of course Firstport being desperate for cash immediately demanded an increase in the rent charge of between £100-£150 per year. Naturally the residents were very angry about this, but nearly as angry as Crest Nicholson were. They have intervened several times on behalf of the residents stating that the £1 rent charge was agreed, that a rent charge is purely to acknowledge a right of ownership and for absolutely no other service. Crest Nicholson have offered to help residents as much as they can. Under pressure from residents, Crest Nicholson and the local MP Dr Liam Fox, Firstport have offered a deed of variation at a cost to each resident of £500 subsequently reduced as a goodwill gesture of £300.
Doubtless Crest Nicholson will look to other companies to manage their new build developments in future.
It is a high end
luxury development in one of the most expensive areas in Bristol. Unfortunately as is all too common with developers Crest Nicholson sold off the communal areas which resulted in having Firstport imposed on them as managing agent with all the overcharges that Firstport are associated with.
However, to their credit on the transfer back in 2011 Crest Nicholson made an agreement with Firstport that rent charges would be restricted to £1 per year. Of course Firstport charged some residents much more than the £1, which after a battle agreed that this was due to an administrative error and refunded the extra payments.
Roll forward to 2023. After accepting £1 per year rent charge payments from 2011 one of Firstport's eagle eyed legal team noticed that though there had been an agreement for a £1 per year charge, a deed of variation had not been carried out, rendering the agreement invalid.
And of course Firstport being desperate for cash immediately demanded an increase in the rent charge of between £100-£150 per year. Naturally the residents were very angry about this, but nearly as angry as Crest Nicholson were. They have intervened several times on behalf of the residents stating that the £1 rent charge was agreed, that a rent charge is purely to acknowledge a right of ownership and for absolutely no other service. Crest Nicholson have offered to help residents as much as they can. Under pressure from residents, Crest Nicholson and the local MP Dr Liam Fox, Firstport have offered a deed of variation at a cost to each resident of £500 subsequently reduced as a goodwill gesture of £300.
Doubtless Crest Nicholson will look to other companies to manage their new build developments in future.
Posted by The Editor on 14 April 2024
Reputations are hard won and easily lost even through business association.
Posted by Stephen Burns on 14 April 2024
Absolutely correct. Barratt are also getting increasingly concerned as to the reputational damage being done to them by being associated with Firstport
Posted by Michael Epstein on 15 April 2024
Annual accounts
Our devopment has been told that our annual A/C (WICH are long overdue) will not be available until the new AM. is in Situe. Also. We were told there is a rather large deficit 22/23.wich we will. All. Of course pay. How come FP know there is a deficit if the A/C'S HAVE NOT BEEN PREPARED? Is this a delaying tactic on the part of FP so. That we will. All be charged a late payment fee????
Posted by Puzzled (York) on 11 April 2024
We're also waiting impatiently for the 2022/23 accounts!! They are way overdue, but in our case FP do have the figures for the whole scheme at a gross level, but they've not been split down into the various blocks, etc, or been audited, which of course has to happen before the accounts are finalised. I suspect you've got the same situation.
Posted by RogerJ on 13 April 2024
Virtually every one of the Firstport managed estates are receiving late accounts. Many of those are even having to be issued with Section20b notices to cover the lateness of charging.
This is due to severe cost cutting leading to a shortage of staff in the Firstport accounts department.
It was not so long ago that so far behind in development account preparation was Firstport that they had to outsource the accounts to a company in Malaysia.
This is due to severe cost cutting leading to a shortage of staff in the Firstport accounts department.
It was not so long ago that so far behind in development account preparation was Firstport that they had to outsource the accounts to a company in Malaysia.
Posted by The Editor on 13 April 2024
We are still waiting for the last 3 years worth of accounts going back to 2020/2021. I have involved Homeground but they have not been successful in even obtaining a forecast of when the account will be available. Firstport have stopped engaging with me and are forcing me to go to the FTT to get the answers to issues that are of their making. I have also written to my MP and the CEO of Barratt Homes. I believe that Barratt Homes have also been fobbed off but still awaiting a full response.
Posted by Chris on 13 April 2024
We are still waiting for 2023 accounts arranged under Westbury Residential Ltd whose director was previously regional for PEVEREL later renamed as FIRSTPORT…
Posted by Kim on 13 April 2024
The Monitor Lizard!
Interesting creature the Monitor Lizard.
Somehow(and I do not claim to be an expert on this) the Arabic word "Warni" was translated to the word "Lizard" and the Monitor part came from the Latin " Monere" translated to the word "Monitor"
The Monitor Lizard thus got its name from its ability to stand on their hind legs and observe or "Monitor" their surroundings.
So bringing the subject of Firstport into an article concerning the Monitor Lizard it can be seen that if Firstport or their appointed company are "observing" and thereby able to react to their observations for such matters as an alarm going off at a retirement development they are monitoring. If on the other hand they react to information passed to them by a third party they cannot be monitoring.
Since only retirement developments are fitted with alarm call systems and not general residential developments it follows that general residential developments not only do not have any form of monitoring but they are incapable of being monitored.
Hence all monitoring charges imposed on general development residents by Firstport are BOGUS and should be challenged!
Somehow(and I do not claim to be an expert on this) the Arabic word "Warni" was translated to the word "Lizard" and the Monitor part came from the Latin " Monere" translated to the word "Monitor"
The Monitor Lizard thus got its name from its ability to stand on their hind legs and observe or "Monitor" their surroundings.
So bringing the subject of Firstport into an article concerning the Monitor Lizard it can be seen that if Firstport or their appointed company are "observing" and thereby able to react to their observations for such matters as an alarm going off at a retirement development they are monitoring. If on the other hand they react to information passed to them by a third party they cannot be monitoring.
Since only retirement developments are fitted with alarm call systems and not general residential developments it follows that general residential developments not only do not have any form of monitoring but they are incapable of being monitored.
Hence all monitoring charges imposed on general development residents by Firstport are BOGUS and should be challenged!
Posted by The Editor on 11 April 2024
There have been some 15558 posts and replies on this page. To view older ones search here.
This only searches posts, not replies.
