AFTER enduring storm damage I, like many others, was advised to contact my insurance company.

I got out the necessary paperwork and in the 50 minutes I was kept waiting for an assessor to speak to me, I read the 24-page leaflet which accompanied my other insurance documents.

To my amazement I discovered that for every entitlement to claim there were, on average, ten clauses of non-entitlement. I was therefore not surprised to be eventually told that no, I could not claim for the damage.

I have now worked out that in almost 50 years of paying out household insurance, I have only twice been reimbursed for household damages/accidents.

On three other equally valid claims I have had a non-entitlement clause pointed out to me, this is obviously designed to protect the insurance company.

After the theft of a bag earlier this year, I had the same response from the insurance company which then increased my premium.

Now, with further unavoidable damage, the company comes up with yet another get-out clause.

I cannot afford another increase in insurance premiums and, given the number of "non-entitlement clauses", is there any point?

Liz Edge,

Parkside Close, York.

Updated: 11:46 Friday, January 14, 2005