It would be a non standard circuit, to have a ring of L and N and a crab claws of earth. No risk of overload at 32A OCP 

Clearly not an immediate death risk in the way of say the socket smashed off and the L and N wires poking out but it would be a brave fellow who said it warranted not even a cursory check.
At least you now need to plug in the Zs meter and verify to all sockets as you have no idea if there is a single break in the ring, or a long dead section and a string of unearthed ones. Of course CPC may be provided by conduit so there may not be an actual wire, but there should be continuity.

By you have done that, you have done 90% of the fault find.

In some southern EU countries you could fit an RCD and then walk off, but not really under UK regs.

Mike

It would be a non standard circuit, to have a ring of L and N and a crab claws of earth. No risk of overload at 32A OCP 

Clearly not an immediate death risk in the way of say the socket smashed off and the L and N wires poking out but it would be a brave fellow who said it warranted not even a cursory check.
At least you now need to plug in the Zs meter and verify to all sockets as you have no idea if there is a single break in the ring, or a long dead section and a string of unearthed ones. Of course CPC may be provided by conduit so there may not be an actual wire, but there should be continuity.

By you have done that, you have done 90% of the fault find.

In some southern EU countries you could fit an RCD and then walk off, but not really under UK regs.

Mike

how do Mike

"At least you now need to plug in the Zs meter"

The OP and further on confirms that Zs good at all points  and when considering the question, to suppose that everything is looking reasonable (prot dev, conductor sizes, condition etc) with the circuit (without pulling it apart) other than the cpc is discontinuous (when checked at the board).    Then  consider the OP question.

As commented in this discussion thread, the circuit is not as it should be and there have been other comments  why  it should be condemned to being potentially dangerous  (technically and or  in context of eicr as an unsatisfactory  outcome etc ) as opposed to    needing improvement for safety as such.  Anything can become potentially dangerous of course :-)

There has been differing opinion when similar questions raised previously and it appears that still exists ...  but there is more a lean to the 'dangerous' assessment it seems... 

Regards