When other options have failed to silence a resident, Peverel/Firstport will deploy the Defamation Solicitor's Letter Missile.
All sorts of threats are made on the basis of the resident having "defamed" the company.
Fortunately, there are many defences to a defamation claim.
Even if a resident communicates a statement that turns out to be wrong, if the statement was made in good faith and with reasonable belief that it was true any claim for defamation would fail.
For example, if it was said that service charge trust funds have been used in a fraudulant manner, Peverel/Firstport might sue for defamation on the grounds that they had not been. (it should be noted this is just an example, as they have been used fraudulantly)
The defence in this case would be simple, in that Peverel/Firstport have admitted to price fixing. They made a financial gain from service charge trust accounts.
So issuing a statement that Peverel/Firstport defrauded service charge accounts would be made with a reasonable belief.
Another defence is "Fair Comment"
Saying that Peverel/Firstport and Freemont are crooked companies and that everyone should rid themselves of them is "Fair Comment" as it would be all to easy to show that the conduct of these companies is such that referring to them as "Crooked" is a "Fair Comment"
You are free to express an opinion. An opinion is not a finite statement and therefore cannot be defamatory, It is an "Opinion" not a statement of fact.
About Peverel's favourite defence to a defamation suit, which perfectly reflects Peverel/Firstport and Freemont is the defence that "The claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could do no further damage to the plaintiff"
"The Claimant is incapable of further defamation"
Should anyone receive a defamation letter on behalf of Peverel/Firstport, write back to the solicitor saying " I deny defaming your client"
Then relax and take pleasure in knowing Peverel/Firstport have wasted even more money on getting a solicitor to issue a bogus threat.
