This is my take on the points raised.... Firstly, did you agree the limitations with him before hand?
Items....
1. C3 is fine, won't result in unsatisfactory
2. C3 is fine, won't result in unsatisfactory, however if that's the only reason he didn't do dead testing... he's a muppet
3, 4, 5 - I think one C3 would have been enough for the lack of labelling. Fairly common problem on older installs
6 - Guessing this is CPC sleeving... again, fairly common on older installs not to find any
7, 9, 10, 11 - Personally, I don't think these need to be listed as for existing installations this should usually be a limitation on the entire report. What I find quite interesting though is 16. He's obviously looked at enough to establish that in his opinion there is an excess of junction boxes (which are usually tucked away in the fabric of the build). However... this isn't strictly against the regulations. Being unable to access them for inspection purposes is (if they are screw type) but providing they are well terminated, an excess is not a breach of the regulations, it's just not good practice
12 - If I come across situations like that, I simply re-terminate and comment on a continuation page. It takes hardly any time.
13 - Did he say where?
14 - Loose accessories, justifies a comment
15 - Valid point
17 - I can't read
It's interesting he makes the point about knockout boxes and exposed live parts but doesn't list the junction box in the loft with no cover on it, just a comment.
At the very minimum, he could have conducted a global IR test on the whole installation. Would have been better than nothing, or could have pulled the fuses and just carried out a 250v L-E test for each circuit and then possibly a global N-E test and possibly even a by circuit L-N test (with all other neutrals connected). There are ways and means of getting some results if you're intent on doing the best job you can. I would caveat those results on a continuation page.
Please note.. these are my opinions only based solely on the content of the report.