Electrical installation by a friend - Mandatory inspection due to insurance?

Sorry, but no one is like you. It is unambiguous.

I would link it, but that is not possible here.

Maintenance work behind measuring device

ep11/2010, 2 pages

Regulation of the NAV ep 4/2010, 1 page

For example, they address this. The articles are freely accessible.

Drinking water is stricter than electricity!

You should definitely keep your hands off anything that is actually used as drinking water.

A garden irrigation system behind a backflow preventer is more likely to be allowed. However, I would have to google the purely legal aspects first.

I have actually dealt with the topic of garden irrigation very extensively. A backflow preventer is unfortunately not enough. Officially, only an open discharge is permitted. In our case, the drinking water is supposed to flow via an open discharge first into a container and then by pump into the irrigation system. The question is, am I allowed to connect this PE pipe myself? As mentioned, the water then only goes into a container.

The discussion suffers from the fact that there can be a difference between what is legally permitted and what insurance conditions may partly require. This leads to talking past each other.

: To what extent your insurance requires acceptance by a correspondingly certified person is stated in your insurance conditions. These are not the same with every insurer. You can also call and ask. We can only make assumptions here.

I thought with water I am allowed to do everything myself behind the water meter. So, for example, connecting a PE pipe that goes into the garden to an extra branch provided for this purpose is allowed, isn’t it?

Basically, you are right, but special conditions of the suppliers also apply here. Especially for lines in the garden, e.g. underground irrigation systems, there are restrictions in many statutes / supply conditions. As the volunteer chairman of our village water supply, I have some local involvement with this. For underground systems, I have to insist on a free outlet in order to meet the requirements of the district health office and the district environmental office (our supervisory authority).

Would link it but that’s not possible here. Maintenance work behind measuring device ep11/2010, 2 pages Regulation of the NAV ep 4/2010, 1 page For example, they address this. The articles are freely accessible.

That is ancient. Quote “The work may only be carried out by the network operator or by an installation company registered in an installer directory of a network operator;” That is clear. See NAV. The responsibility that the work is carried out accordingly is regulated in sentence 1. These are different things. He is allowed to do it and who is responsible to the network operator.

: To what extent your insurance requires the acceptance by a correspondingly certified person is stated in your insurance conditions. These are not the same for every insurer. You can also call and ask. We can only make assumptions here.

I will check - thanks. Assuming it says nothing about this, may I then conclude that nothing special is required?

Basically, you are right, but special conditions of the suppliers also count here. Especially for lines in the garden, e.g. underground irrigation systems, there are restrictions in many statutes/delivery conditions. As honorary chairman of our village water supply, I am locally involved with this. For underground systems, I have to insist on a free outlet in order to meet the requirements of the district health office and the district environmental office (our supervisory authorities).

Yes, I thought it was regulated nationwide in Germany that for irrigation, e.g. with sprinklers, only a free outlet is permitted. I think it is DIN1988-100. As mentioned, we will also implement the free outlet. My question is whether I am allowed to connect the pipe, which represents the free outlet, directly to the drinking water installation or not. How is it handled in your area?

That is ancient.

Quote "The work may only be carried out, apart from the network operator, by an installation company registered in the installer directory of a network operator;"
That is clear. Says NAV.
The responsibility for ensuring that the work is carried out accordingly is regulated in sentence 1.
These are different things. He is allowed to do it and who is responsible to the network operator.

As far as I know, the paragraph has not been changed since then. Therefore, the interpretation should have remained the same.