1st Protection Systems

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved Regards, [redacted]

This company came to our store and without owner or manager approval did the inspection and told the one in charge that they are just going to do a check with no chargeAsked the clerk to sign to confirm that they stop byAfter a month, received a bill from this company for inspectionThis is a typical scam that protection company doesNobody authorized them to do or perform inspection

This company came to our business and without owner or manager approval did the inspection Asked the receptionist to sign to confirm that they were thereAfter a month, received a bill from this company for inspectionCalled the company and they were quick to remove the chargeStill, this is a typical scam that protection company doesNobody authorized them to do or perform inspection

November 11,
*** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
*** ** ***
Thank you for your concerns sent to us regarding services
providedFurther investigating the
invoices in question, there was pre-authorization form signed by your representative at the time of
serviceThe pre-authorization form is signed and it clearly states: "By signing this form is agreed and understood that proper pre-authorization was given for all of thefire protection services performed by one or more Fire Protection Systems Technicians at thelocation identified belowYour signature below acknowledges that the technician(s) have not inany manner whatsoever tampered with any of the fixed fire systems in the facility or any portionsthereof."
If the technician was not authorized to service/inspect the location then the technician(s) should
have been directed to the correct and authorized personnelIf the technician(s) were informed to
either come back at a later time or were simply asked to speak with the person that authorizes the
service/inspections then he would have not had any problems doing soIt is your employees/
"Managers"/ "Supervisors'' obligation to ask questions if he did not completely understand what
the technician was offeringThe technician would have been more than pleased to either repeat
himself or explain the service in a way he would have understoodThe technician would have
been able to service another location at the time in question if your representative would have
refused the service or asked him to come back at a more convenient timeNot all companies
have the same procedures as yours
The technician would have never stated or mislead anyone to believe he is a Fire InspectorIt is
mandatory for the technicians to inform all customers where he is from and what he is offeringOn
the pre-authorization form it also clearly states:"Furthermore, it is understood that First Protection Systems lnspections CoIs a private companyand that its technician(s) has NOT REPRESENTED that he (they) and/or First Fire Systems InspectionsCoItself ARE ACTING FOR, SENT BY, IS A OR ARE MEMBER(S) OF, OR IS IN ANY AFFILIATED WITH ANYFIRE DEPARTMENT OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR LW ENFORCEMENT AGENT."
Not only the pre-authorization form states where the technician is from, but they also wear auniform that clearly states where they are from in BIG BOLD LETTERS
First Protection Systems has attached the zero balance statement and the pre-authorization form
signed at the time of service/inspection so that you can better understand the situationI have
received your letter, and we understand you did not request this service
Thank you for your attention regarding this matter
Sincerely,
*** ** ***
Account Supervisor

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, although they claim that they followed protocol by asking for an owner, supervisor or office manager, I would like to make it clear that the person that they had signed their fraudulent paperwork, was neither an owner, a supervisor nor an office manager However they have agreed to clear their fraudulent invoice and I find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved
Regards,
*** ***

November 6,
*** ***
*** ** *** *** ***
*** *** **
Thank you for your concerns sent to us regarding services providedFurther investigating the
invoices in question, there was pre-authorization form signed by your representative at
the time of
serviceThe pre-authorization form is signed and it clearly states:
"By signing this form is agreed and understood that proper pre-authorization was given for all of the
fire protection services performed by one or more Fire Protection Systems Technicians at the
location identified belowYour signature below acknowledges that the technician(s) have not in
any manner whatsoever tampered with any of the fixed fire systems in the facility or any portions
thereof."
If the technician was not authorized to service/inspect the location then the technician(s) should
have been directed to the correct and authorized personnelIf the technician(s) were informed to
either come back at a later time or were simply asked to speak with the person that authorizes the
service/inspections then he would have not had any problems doing soIt is your employees/
"Managers"/ "Supervisors" obligation to ask questions if he did not completely understand what
the technician was offeringThe technician would have been more than pleased to either repeat
himself or explain the service in a way he would have understoodThe technician would have
been able to service another location at the time in question if your representative would have
refused the service or asked him to come back at a more convenient timeNot all to companies
have the same procedures as yours
The technician would have never stated or mislead anyone to believe he is a Fire InspectorIt is
mandatory for the technicians to inform all customers where he is from and what he is offeringOn
the pre-authorization form it also clearly states:
"Furthermore, it is understood that First Protection Systems Inspections Cois a private company
and that its technician(s) has NOT REPRESENTED that he (they) and/or First Fire Systems Inspections
Coitself ARE ACTING FOR, SENT BY, IS A OR ARE MEMBER(S) OF IS IN ANY AFFILIATED WITH ANY
FIRE DEPARTMENT OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY."
Not only the pre-authorization form states where the technician is from, but they also wear a
uniform that clearly states where they are from in BIG BOLD LETTERS
First Protection Systems has attached the zero balance statement and the pre-authorization form
signed at the time of service/inspection so that you can better understand the situationI have
received your letter, and we understand you did not request this service
Thank you for your attention regarding this matter
Sincerely,
*** ** ***
Account Supervisor

To whom it may concern;
We received your letter stating that we performed an inspection that was
not authorized and fraudulently presented ourselves as figures of
authority
Let me first off apologize for any confusion that was caused by our
/>
companyWe strive for 100% customer satisfaction
At PS, we train our technicians to ask for an owner, manager or
supervisor for proper authorization, periodically this protocol is
unintentionally brokenAlso, you stated that our technician fraudulently
presented ourselves as "figures of authority." We are an lndependent
inspection companyOur Invoices that was signed by your employee
clearly state that we are not affiliated with property management, fire
authority or any government agency
In an effort to save time and money, we will zero out this invoice and you
will not be liable for the bill
Attached is a zero balance invoice for your records
If you need our services in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us
Sincerely,
*** ***
Account Supervisor

05-05-
*** *** Restaurant
*** N*** St
***, CA ***
RE: Invoice # *** ***
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We have received your letter stating your Issues with our companyI am sincerely sorry
for your inability to reach someone from management, we strive for 100% satisfaction
First of all, We feel that our technician handled the situation appropriately and was able to come to a satisfactory conclusionI will personally make sure that you will receive no more statements from our companyI will also put you on or "do not contact list and we will no longer service your location
We have been successfully serving California for over years and we have upheld the highest level of ethics in the Industry
I am sorry for the confusion, please accept the NFPA Title reports you received as a compliment from our company
Sincerely,
*** ***
Account Supervisor

October 31,
*** *** ***
*** ** *** ** *** ***
*** *** ** ***
Thank you for your concerns sent to us regarding services providedFurther investigating the
invoices in question, there was pre-authorization form signed by your
representative at the time of
serviceThe pre-authorization form is signed and it clearly states: "By signing this form is agreed and understood that proper pre-authorization was given for all of the
fire protection services performed by one or more Fire Protection Systems Technicians at the
location identified belowYour signature below acknowledges that the technician(s) have not in
any manner whatsoever tampered with any of the fixed fire systems in the facility or any portions
thereof."
If the technician was not authorized to service/inspect the location then the technician(s) should
have been directed to the correct and authorized personnelIf the technician(s) were informed to
either come back at a later time or were simply asked to speak with the person that authorizes the
service/inspections then he would have not had any problems doing soIt is your employees/
"Managers"/ "Supervisors'' obligation to ask questions if he did not completely understand what
the technician was offeringThe technician would have been more than pleased to either repeat
himself or explain the service in a way he would have understoodThe technician would have
been able to service another location at the time in question if your representative would have
refused the service or asked him to come back at a more convenient timeNot all companies
have the same procedures as yours
The technician would have never stated or mislead anyone to believe he is a Fire InspectorIt is
mandatory for the technicians to inform all customers where he is from and what he is offeringOn
the pre-authorization form it also clearly states:"Furthermore, it is understood that First Protection Systems lnspections CoIs a private company
and that its technician(s) has NOT REPRESENTED that he (they) and/or First Fire Systems Inspections
CoItself ARE ACTING FOR, SENT BY, IS A OR ARE MEMBER(S) OF, OR IS IN ANY AFFILIATED WITH ANY
FIRE DEPARTMENT OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR LW ENFORCEMENT AGENT."
Not only the pre-authorization form states where the technician is from, but they also wear a
uniform that clearly states where they are from in BIG BOLD LETTERS
First Protection Systems has attached the zero balance statement and the pre-authorization form
signed at the time of service/inspection so that you can better understand the situationI have
received your letter, and we understand you did not request this service
Thank you for your attention regarding this matter
Sincerely,
*** ** ***
Account Supervisor

To whom it may concern;
We received your letter stating you called us 3 times and were rudely put
on hold. Also you stated, we were not authorized by the landlord or owner
and you requested this invoice to be voided.
Let me first apologize for...

any confusion that was caused. We strive for
100% customer satisfaction. Our call center at times can be overwhelmed
with calls. On the invoice that was signed it states that we are an
independent company and not representing property management.
In an effort to save time and money we will zero out this invoice and you
will not be liable to pay this bill.
If you need our services in the future, do not hesitate to contact our
offices .
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Account Supervisor
07/21/14 CC: Revdex.com, COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT OF SAN
DIEGO
COMPLAINT# 1[redacted]

Re: Invoice # [redacted]
To whom it may concern,
We received your letter regarding an inspection at your facility.
You stated in your letter that the technician said that they were sent from
the landlord. Our technicians are correctly trained and highly...

qualified for
the field and know that they are not allowed to say that. You also stated
that we ask for a manager /owner to sign our paperwork, and that is
correct. The technicians do receive proper signatures from
managers/owners.
1 PSis a company that strives for 100% customer Satisfaction. In an effort to
save time and money, we will zero out this invoice and you will not be
liable to pay this bill.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Technician

We received your complaint letter stating you were unable to reach us and
the inspection was unauthorized. Let me first apologize for any confusion
that was caused by our company. We strive for 100% customer satisfaction.
We are an inspection company that offers the...

highest level of inspection in
the industry. We have been serving California for over 10 years. We train our
techs to ask for an owner, supervisor or a manager, we feel we followed
protocol in this situation.
In an effort to save time and money, we will zero out this invoice and you
will not be liable to pay this bill.
If you need services in the future, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Account Supervisor

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: This is a scam. No services requested, none provided, just a con story to get a signature on a form. This is a scam. A person came to the door claiming to represent the landlord. He did a cursory, short look around and asked for a signature on a form, describing that the form was to confirm that he had been to the office. They are claiming that we requested services and that they performed some services in the visit. This same scam was done at several neighboring offices and reported to the landlord,[redacted] Company, and the Police.Desired Settlement: desist billing, remove credit claim.

Review: Service person from 1st Protection arrived at our business on 7/29/2014 and stated that he needed to check out fire protection system. He had us sign paperwork and never mentioned that there would be any charges associated with it. We were led to believe that the person was sent out by our property management company. We then received a bill a full month later for alleged service for $295.00. Service was never requested so no payment will be made.

(There are currently 15+ complaints filed via "business consumer alliance" by other businesses regarding the same undisclosed pricing and this particular business practice issues with this company within the past month)Desired Settlement: Zero out balance with no payment due (INVOICE [redacted])

Review: 1st Protection Systems showed up at our store and said 'they were sent to do an inspection.' Our store manager, [redacted], assumed that they were sent by our owner, [redacted] or our landlord, The Irvine Company. They were sent by neither.

I have called three times to ask who ordered their inspection of our store. I left a voicemail message on 6/4/14, no response. On 6/18, I talked to the receptionist and left a message for her to investigate, no response. Today, on 6/25, I introduced myself again, was put on hold indefinitely and then when I called back the receptionist never came on the line from the auto hold pattern. They must have caller ID and won't take my call.

They have billed us on Invoice [redacted] for $325.00 dated 5/6/14 for a flat rate service, They have sent us a second notice. This is a scam as far as I can tell.

Please advise. Thank you.Desired Settlement: Void the above referenced invoice.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern;

We received your letter stating you called us 3 times and were rudely put

on hold. Also you stated, we were not authorized by the landlord or owner

and you requested this invoice to be voided.

Let me first apologize for any confusion that was caused. We strive for

100% customer satisfaction. Our call center at times can be overwhelmed

with calls. On the invoice that was signed it states that we are an

independent company and not representing property management.

In an effort to save time and money we will zero out this invoice and you

will not be liable to pay this bill.

If you need our services in the future, do not hesitate to contact our

offices .

Sincerely,

Account Supervisor

07/21/14 CC: Revdex.com, COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT OF SAN

DIEGO

COMPLAINT# 1[redacted]

Review: This invoice is completely fraudulent. The so called "inspector" step one foot into my warehouse, said it looked fine, then had someone sign his paperwork and sent an invoice.Desired Settlement: The invoice needs to be cancelled. I will also contact the police dept about this fraudulent activity.

Business

Response:

Re: Invoice # [redacted]

To whom it may concern,

We received your letter regarding an inspection at your facility.

You stated in your letter that the technician said that they were sent from

the landlord. Our technicians are correctly trained and highly qualified for

the field and know that they are not allowed to say that. You also stated

that we ask for a manager /owner to sign our paperwork, and that is

correct. The technicians do receive proper signatures from

managers/owners.

1 PSis a company that strives for 100% customer Satisfaction. In an effort to

save time and money, we will zero out this invoice and you will not be

liable to pay this bill.

Sincerely,

Technician

Review: on 08/04/2014, a technician from 1st. Protection Systems came into our medical condo and claimed that he was sent by our building management company to take a look at our fire sprinklers within the suite. My summer intern let the guy in and he spent about 2 minutes counting the number of fire sprinklers we have and left. A month later, I received an invoice from them charging me $225 for the so-called "inspection". I contacted the building management company and they assured me that they have never authorized anyone to come into the building and count the number of fire sprinklers. It was simply a lie made up by 1st. Protection Systems to get access to the building. They even put down my summer intern's name as "Office Manager". I have contacted the company today (09/05/2014) and asked them to stop sending me the invoice, along with other 44 tenants in this building.Desired Settlement: No more unethical business practice.

Review: Completely fraudulent. No services rendered yet have billed us for $295.

Received an invoice from 1st Protection Systems today stating that they performed a number of inspections at our site on 6/26/14. They were never authorized or called in to perform this service and fraudulently presented themselves to employees as figures of authority and got them to sign their form. This form was later manipulated by 1st Protection Systems as you can tell that a minimum of 4 people, not including my employee, have written on this form, including dating the form themselves below my employee's signature. On top of this, my employee only signed one form, but now there are 3 other "signed" forms which were obviously forged as the signatures and writing do not match. Additionally, it is blatantly obvious that they did not perform any of the services described as their sheet does not even match up to how our fire life safety system is setup. They state we have 4 emergency exit lights, which we do not. On top of this, it states the fire alarm system and alarm panel was inspected, which is impossible due to the fact that the fire alarm panel is inaccessible without a key from the property manager, which they did not provide and that the fire sprinklers were inspected, which is also not possible as they did not go past our front counter or have a ladder, which means they could not have been inspected (additionally inspecting the system requires advance notice to our property manager as the system would need to be put on test or the fire department would be called). It also states they inspected our fire suppression system, which they did not as well as it is not accessible to the public and they were not allowed to go into any private areas of the facility.

Additionally I do not see anywhere that they are actually licensed to perform any fire life safety inspection services, which are required when certifying fire extinguishers, ANSUL systems, etc.Desired Settlement: Void my invoice and never return to my facility again. Please provide me with your licensing information so I can report you to the State and local authorities.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern;

We received your letter stating that we performed an inspection that was

not authorized and fraudulently presented ourselves as figures of

authority .

Let me first off apologize for any confusion that was caused by our

company. We strive for 100% customer satisfaction.

At 1 PS, we train our technicians to ask for an owner, manager or

supervisor for proper authorization, periodically this protocol is

unintentionally broken. Also, you stated that our technician fraudulently

presented ourselves as "figures of authority." We are an lndependent

inspection company. Our Invoices that was signed by your employee

clearly state that we are not affiliated with property management, fire

authority or any government agency .

In an effort to save time and money, we will zero out this invoice and you

will not be liable for the bill.

Attached is a zero balance invoice for your records.

If you need our services in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us .

Sincerely,

Account Supervisor

Review: 1st Protection came to our premises on 6/4/14 to perform an inspection on our fire alarm. the service was never requested nor schedule my employee thought it was a routine inspection since they are uniform all seems legit. I receive a bill for 325.00 on 6/26/14 which I thought it was excessive never the less I paid the invoice. on 9/26/14 I receive another bill for 325.00 from a company called Professional Fire Pro. for the same service. Since I had already paid for this service two months ago I got suspicious, sure enough I compare both invoices the one from 1st Protection and the one from Professional Fire Pro , except for company name, every single detail on these invoices is identical. I will no be paying the second invoice [redacted]. This is clearly a scam., everyone in my company is aware of this scam and I will alert my business neighbors about this scam.Desired Settlement: Invoice be voided and neither company contacts me or my staff again.

Business

Response:

November 11, 2014

Thank you for your concerns sent to us regarding services provided. Further investigating the

invoices in question, there was pre-authorization form signed by your representative at the time of

service. The pre-authorization form is signed and it clearly states:

"By signing this form is agreed and understood that proper pre-authorization was given for all of the

fire protection services performed by one or more Fire Protection Systems Technicians at the

location identified below. Your signature below acknowledges that the technician(s) have not in

any manner whatsoever tampered with any of the fixed fire systems in the facility or any portions

thereof."

If the technician was not authorized to service/inspect the location then the technician(s) should

have been directed to the correct and authorized personnel. If the technician(s) were informed to

either come back at a later time or were simply asked to speak with the person that authorizes the

service/inspections then he would have not had any problems doing so. It is your employees/

"Managers"/ "Supervisors'' obligation to ask questions if he did not completely understand what

the technician was offering. The technician would have been more than pleased to either repeat

himself or explain the service in a way he would have understood. The technician would have

been able to service another location at the time in question if your representative would have

refused the service or asked him to come back at a more convenient time. Not all companies

have the same procedures as yours.

The technician would have never stated or mislead anyone to believe he is a Fire Inspector. It is

mandatory for the technicians to inform all customers where he is from and what he is offering. On

the pre-authorization form it also clearly states:

"Furthermore, it is understood that First Protection Systems lnspections Co. Is a private company

and that its technician(s) has NOT REPRESENTED that he (they) and/or First Fire Systems Inspections

Co. Itself ARE ACTING FOR, SENT BY, IS A OR ARE MEMBER(S) OF, OR IS IN ANY AFFILIATED WITH ANY

FIRE DEPARTMENT OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OR LW ENFORCEMENT AGENT."

Not only the pre-authorization form states where the technician is from, but they also wear a

uniform that clearly states where they are from in BIG BOLD LETTERS.

First Protection Systems has attached the zero balance statement and the pre-authorization form

signed at the time of service/inspection so that you can better understand the situation. I have

received your letter, and we understand you did not request this service.

Thank you for your attention regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Account Supervisor

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.

Regards,