Standard Bank or Should we say Sub Standard Bank

After buying a house two years ago and getting a home loan from Standard bank with Insurance, we had an incident where a part of the boundary wall (build with rocks) fell over after rain. I contacted the insurance to claim and my claim was rejected due to the following reasons: 1. Wear and tear defects: Wear and tear defects or a course that acts slowly, for example age, rust and damp. It also includes insects or vermin. 2. Defects: Defect in design, materials or construction. There was no inspection done to this property by the insurance and no communication stating that the boundary wall was in any way shape or form defective. After the claim, contractors and assessors came to investigate and stated that the wall was not according to standard and they will not fix it (We bought the house like this). What standard? Was I as a new owner supposed to know this and if it was sub standard why did they not excluded it in writing to me or stipulated it in the insurance documents? They then offered me a settlement so I can repair the wall but if I sign the settlement, Standard Bank will no longer be liable for the wall. Meaning if we repair the “substandard” wall the next incident will be our problem, replacing the wall they also do not want to do that. (must say it was a joke of a settlement). I must repair the wall on my own cost and then only will they pay out. Who has that cash laying around and now I ask you why do we have insurance is their only function is to find loophole out of their commitments? I furthermore asked standard bank to share with me the following: 1. Assessors detailed report 2. Contractors quotation 3. Breakdown of how they got to the settlement amount. We have had no response to this. From the start of this ordeal on the 13th March 2020 till today 15 May 2020 this issue is still not resolved. Our last resort for assistance is Hello Peter and Ombudsman.