A pensioner is locked in a battle with insurers who say her roof was not damaged by storm conditions, despite extensive reports of flooding.

Cheryl Godfrey, of London Road, West Kingsdown, had to pay £2,000 to get her roof repaired following heavy rain and windy conditions on June 11, but insurers are refusing to accept the damage was caused by a storm.

That's despite news reports from the time which show parts of Kent were affected by severe flooding, with one woman in West Kingsdown having to be rescued after becoming trapped in her home by waist-deep water.

"It's just ridiculous," said Mrs Godfrey, 67, a retired hairdresser who looks after her 83-year-old mother.

"There are so many claims going on around here but they keep saying we didn't have storm conditions. They keep saying I didn't maintain my roof.

"The house across the road is still redecorating from it. There was a sinkhole in the M20 and junction 1 and 2 was flooded."

Mrs Godfrey posted on Facebook to highlight the issue earlier this year and was inundated with messages from people experiencing similar problems.

"They all said send them round here - we're still out of our houses.

"We've got a microclimate near West Kingsdown - because it's quite high up we've got different weather."

While an assessor from Churchill Insurance said Mrs Godfrey's roof had been affected by ongoing wear and tear, an independent roofer said the roof had been in serviceable condition, adding that he believed Mrs Godfrey's claim was fair.

"I always tell people to get good insurance company, because of things like this," added Mrs Godfrey. "I thought they were a good company but they're not if they don't pay out.

"It's really upset me - that's what insurance is for."

A statement from Churchill said: "Having looked into Ms Godfrey’s claim, we can confirm that following investigation we did not uphold her complaint and offered her referral to the FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) in a resolving letter.

"Ms Godfrey’s complaint referred to damage to her roof when tiles were blown off earlier this year. When we sent our investigators to her property, we found that the damage within the claim would not be covered as storm damage as it was deemed to have been caused by an ongoing wear and tear issue, rather than a one off storm event. As noted in our policy booklets, we are unable to cover wear and tear. We noted localised flooding within the area, but understand that this would not have been a cause of the damage to the roof only.

"We note that Ms Godfrey has referred her complaint onto the FOS and we have since shared our findings to them along with our outcome. We’re currently awaiting the FOS’ outcome on this."

Read more: All the latest news from Gravesend