Sadly, it is a letter all too familiar to thousands of people who signed up for wholeof-life policies sold by most of the big insurance companies back in the 1980s and 1990s. These policies have come up for review in recent years and, invariably, customers are being told to cough up more in premiums or face big cuts in the level of cover.

It is a bitter outcome for a financial product that promised so much at the time it was sold. Whole-of-life cover was aimed at young families on limited budgets who needed life insurance in case of disaster as well as a savings plan to put away some money for the future.

These policies claimed to meet both goals in a single, low-cost product. The big attraction was the premium and, because most of the people signing up for whole-of-life were young parents at the time, it was relatively inexpensive to insure them in the early years.

But all this changed as the years rolled by and, as the policies fell due for review, typically after ten years, customers were told it would cost a lot more to hold onto the same level of life cover. Some discovered that the savings side of their policies had simply vanished as the insurance companies dipped into the money to pay for the growing cost of the life cover. The day of reckoning was even tougher for those who have raided their savings over the years to pay for financial emergencies.

Irish Life still insists the product is good value, balancing guaranteed insurance cover for the rest of customers' lives with a low initial price that took account of all the demands on the finances when they took out the policies.

It says customers knew that the cost would increase over time but argues that they are better placed to deal with the strain in middle life, when their mortgages have been paid down to manageable levels and the children have started to fly the nest. As the extra cost begins to bite, customers might even find they no longer need life insurance because they probably have fewer financial dependents.

Nevertheless, the Financial Regulator raises some question marks over whole-of-life cover in its most recent guide to life insurance, pointing out that it costs more than alternatives forms of cover, which last for a set period rather than for the rest of your life.

The regulator also warns that policy-holders should take promises of a savings nest egg at the end of the rainbow with a grain of salt.

According to its insurance guide: "Even though a wholeof-life policy states that you can sometimes build up a cash sum and withdraw it after a set number of years, in practice this only happens if the fund performs much better than expected. You may find the policy has little or no cash value at any time."

This warning comes way too late for the thousands of people who have already signed up and are wondering what to do next. Even if they decide to bite the bullet and pay the higher premiums now being demanded, this will not be the end of their problems, according to John Geraghty of LA Brokers, which sells discounted life insurance online.

"These reviews will be ongoing so the premium hike you see today is not the end of the story, " he says. "In a few years' time you'll get another letter looking for another big increase in premiums. A lot of people don't want to walk away from these policies because they believe they haven't got anything for their money. But it's like getting a bill and hiding it under the carpet."

The reality is that, at some stage, most people will be forced to throw in the towel because the cost of the cover will eventually slip beyond their grasp.

"The cover is capable of lasting for the whole of your life but it is not necessarily affordable, " Geraghty says.

"You've got to ask yourself if you'll still be able to keep up the premiums when you retire and are living on a fixed income."

The big question is whether you still need life insurance.

While the cost increases dramatically as you get older, the need for cover generally disappears as children make their own way in the world.

Those in the trickiest situation are people who cannot just walk away from the policy because they need the cover to provide for a spouse after they die. One solution for them is to switch to a policy with guaranteed premiums. This protects you from nasty surprises down the line but it does not come cheap.

For example, a 60-year-old man looking for 100,000 of cover for the rest of his life would pay almost 4,000 a year in guaranteed premiums. If he wanted the cover to keep pace with inflation, the cost increases to almost 4,500 a year.

"If you decide you still need the cover, you can take your chances with the policy you already have or get a guaranteed product that won't be subject to review, " says Geraghty.

The ultimate decision is between the lesser of two evils.