About Peverel stand by freedom of expression.
This is especially when views are posted that we profoundly disagree with.
An alternative viewpoint is of great benefit to all.
With regard to recent posts from P.Cheshire and Anon, we were more than happy to publish the initial post, but as we have said the post did not have any heading so could not appear on the site.
On site we asked P.Cheshire to re-send, which as we now know he failed to do.
Instead he sent another post, in a correct manner(so it could go on the site) making some wild unsustained allegations.
This was followed by a very hard hitting post by Anon, who did seem to be very well informed as to the content of P. Cheshire's original post.
For those still wondering about P. Cheshire's original post, he was deeply critical of Select, deeply critical of About Peverel and their contributors) and highly praisworthy of Peverel/Firstport. To support his praise he points out that over a 1000 developments are managed by Peverel/Firstport, so they must be getting something right?
Our question to P. Cheshire is "how many of those developments are managed by Peverel/Firstport because they were part of the same company that owned the freehold?" Could the answer be over a 1000?
To further clarify matters, Select is a new company set up by a former Peverel Property Manager(who as far as About Peverel is aware) was one of the "good ones" and highly respected, untainted by the activities that are a trademark for so much Peverel/Firsport do.
They recently had the temerity to bid for a management contract at a development that wanted rid of Peverel/Firstport.
No doubt that upset Peverel/Firstport. Perhaps Anon's post was a reaction to that?
Could then the P.Cheshire post be likewise motivated?
About Peverel believe it is a possibility but we are not convinced.
Could something else have happened that caused a great upset, that would have spurred P. Cheshire on?
Recently we have put the issue of the sale of house managers flats into the public domain.
We highlighted the undeclared "incentives" Peverel/Firstport staff would receive if they persuaded residents to dispense with a live in house manager.
We suggested that the non declaration of such incentives contravenes the Fraud Act 2006 (failure to disclose).
We were in particular highly critical of Sarah Whitehouse. We demanded to know if she had ever received or had been offered any financial benefit if she could persuade residents to end the role of a live in house manager, which would have allowed Peverel/Firstport to sell the leasehold of the house manages flat (as any restriction on the property would have been lifted)
Sarah Whitehouse has thus far declined to answer.
Though this may only be a speculative theory to explain the P.Cheshire post, a degree of credibility can be attached to the theory of for example it turned out to be that P. Cheshire was actually the husband of Sarah Whitehouse?
