I was interested in John Catt's comments headlined "Merely owning a house doesn't make me rich" (Letters, June 20).

I've just found out the hard way having a low income does not necessarily mean you can get Legal Aid if you have a home.

I earn a very low basic salary each month and receive working family tax credit as well as child benefit.

Because I have equity in my house I am assumed to have it available to spend on legal fees.

I cannot access that equity because my income would not support the necessary loan.

If I sell the house to get the money we will have no home and, since I could not get a mortgage, I would have to pay private rents.

I do not believe the people who constructed this system intended children to be deprived of their family home in order for their resident parent to have access to justice.

Because the matter on which I require advice concerns a dispute over children, I cannot disregard the value of our home, as I would be able to do if the subject of the dispute was the home itself.

How many others is this happening to? A solicitor - the one I would instruct if I could afford to - tells me the Government intends to make more stringent rules of this kind.

In the absence of Legal Aid, I can't pay, so I have to go without advice.

That can't be equitable, can it? Even alleged criminals have the services of a "duty solicitor".

-Name and address supplied