The problem with EICR coding that we discuss so often is that "potentially dangerous" is left to the judgement/discretion of individual inspectors. There will always be some grey areas which do require judgement/discretion, but in many/most cases there could be some explicit 'rules' or, at least ('official') 'guidance' which would help to improve consistency, and reduce some of the anomalies we discuss.
Very well put, and yes agreed for the HSE to say what is to be considered as potentially dangerous would help. And yes 'done to death' but the same question is asked again and again, so this I am sure will continue to fill these pages with questions and answers on the EICR. Even the trade bodies do not seem to be able to make up their mind, and in spite of code 4 being removed we still get references to the regulation, which since the new law refers to BS 7671:2018 is not surprising.
We hear the phrase let the courts decide, and that is how British law works, but it takes time, and with Part P from 2004 we still have not seen many court cases, OK where they claim to be scheme members and are not, or poor workmanship, but not seen any work which complies with the regulations but has not been registered come to court.
So the arguments are better done by an English student to an Electrician, and what it means when "or" used not "and". I speak English I don't know all the rules on it's correct use.
"considered to be potentially unacceptably dangerous at the current time"
Again likely spot on, I have worked on a bridge with exposed knife switches which clearly are not allowed today.
But a RCD does not make any faultless electrical system safer. Only when there is some other fault, does a RCD remove danger, and the RCD question is complex, and I will not profess to know the answers, to my mind TN-C-S is potentially dangerous, and should never have been allowed, but I can't give a code C2 to a TN-C-S supply. So if a TN-C-S supply is allowed, then is the lack of a RCD any more dangerous to a TN-C-S supply?
Some one in government needs to state what is permitted with rental property and not try doing it on the cheap by linking to BS 7671.