That could easily **** someone off and make them give be bullshit C2's+ out of spite.
There are two sides to that sword. If their understanding and belief is that they are going to be asked to do the remedial work resulting from every C2 they report, goodness know have many C2s an unscrupulous one might come up with! As I recently wrote, I would think that, in practice, anyone seeing what they believed to be 'bullshit C2s' (whether due to 'spite', attempts at work-generation or whatever) would (perhaps after initially attempting to 'challenge' them) get another EICR done. That's fair enough for someone (and you sound as if you are one) who has a reasonable ability to decide whether an EICR is "taking the pi$$', the real problem being for those (the majority of) people who don't have that ability.
As I said in response to dave's suggestion, what he suggested is precisely what we do when first employing an 'unknown' person to undertake an EICR. We explain that, in the case of the first two or three EICRs an individual does for us, it is our policy not to ask them to do any consequently required medial work, and
ask if they are happy to undertake the EICR on that basis (with that knowledge) - and few, if any, have said 'no'. Admittedly, we can sweeten the situation by indicating that, if we are happy with the initial EICRs, there is the potential for there to be a lot of 'repeat business' from us (both EICRs and remedial work).
Also seems that even without RCD's it's at most a C3. No need to update to Metal from the wylex, I don't need to meet 18th edition standards for the MCB. I will do it next 5 years because I want to when I have more money.
You are talking about "how it should be" but don't forget that, in the almost total absence of any 'rules', and ridiculous though thios eems tonbe, it's entirely down to an EICR inspector's judgement as to whether a particular non-compliance (with
current regulations) is 'potentially dangerous. Some certainly seem to believe (maybe even advised by their trade organisation)) that, in certain contexts, absence of required RCD protection should be C2, and some even seem to think that a plastic CU 'under the stairs' should be C2!
Kind Regards, John