They confirmed that arrangements could be made to use brokers other than those chosen by PTO. However, given the special arrangement with PTO’s brokers which provided a saving (in terms of there being no management fee), PTO would normally expect alternative brokers to compensate by showing additional value for money. Mr H wrote to PTO saying that he and Mrs H were not able to give PTO letter their full attention at that time because it was the school holidays, which was a busy time for them.
PTO wrote to Mr and Mrs H saying that arrangements had been made for them to attend a meeting with the Master in London on 11 September. PTO wrote to Mrs H confirming that she had telephoned to say that she could not attend the meeting arranged for 11 September. They said that the Master would be pleased to re-arrange the meeting for a mutually convenient time. They said that the current arrangements for handling P’s investments in court would continue. Mr and Mrs H wrote to PTO repeating their request for an answer to their complaint into the delay in beginning investment.
They said that they feared that there had been an oversight by PTO they believed that the investment programme should have begun in January 1991. They said that had they been told of the need for investment even earlier than that they could have been prepared with information about ethical investment before the final court date. They denied that it was their desire for ethical investment which has delayed the process.
They also complained about PTO’s suggestion that matters could have been resolved more quickly if they had attended a meeting for Home Valuations tips. She said that PLATO did not appear to have received Mr and Mrs H’s letters of 10 and 29 September but that. if after reading her letter they felt that there were further points which she had not addressed, they should let her know. She said that although the court had been willing to have a meeting with Mr and Mrs H she fully appreciated why they would not be able to attend such a meeting.