Hello, I'm reheating the chop Well, the client ordered a periodic inspection of the electrical system for the purpose of insuring a single-family house.
From the regulations, it follows that houses of this type should have an inspection of the installation every 5 years. And so, I took measurements of: insulation condition of electrical conductors insulation resistance of cable lines grounding resistance effectiveness of electric shock protection and testing of residual current circuit breakers.
All the measurements and tests came out ok. However, the customer requested a kind of main protocol from this inspection of the state of the installation (someone so advised him ) I have a question what do colleagues think about such a protocol (attachment) and whether I did not miss some important measurement or check ?
Maybe I ask stupidly - and how did the colleague perform the measurement of the insulation resistance of the installation?
adamjur1 wrote:
Pos. J.
I don't understand the question. I thought no one would ask such questions at this stage. I wanted to find out what others thought about the model protocol. I did not know that I would be examined.
I have a question what do you Fellows think about such a protocol (attachment) and whether I have missed some important measurement or check ?
You don't need to discover America, sample protocols are in the measurement standard PN-HD 60364-6 Low-voltage electrical installations - Part 6: Checking.
And in the protocol you should include information on which version of the standard you used, because the year of construction of the object should be taken into account when inspecting. Especially if the installations are quite a lot older and do not meet the requirements of the standard currently in force. Which does not at all mean that they can not still be operated.
And in the protocol you should include information on which version of the standard you used, because the year of construction of the facility should be taken into account when inspecting. Especially if the installations are quite a lot older and do not meet the requirements of the standard currently in force. Which does not at all mean that they can not still be operated.
I super thank you for your answer. Precisely when it comes to standards I had a dilemma, because the installation, although in good condition, does not meet all today's standards therefore, in my opinion, referring in the protocol to standards that do not de facto meet misses the point.
Excuse me, I did not add at the beginning that the installation is "late Gomulka, early Gierek" What about the templates from the standard, which you gave my colleague, there are references to standards, hence my idea to write the protocol yourself, without using a ready-made template.
By the way, even recently when I renewed my license for the umpteenth time, Mr. Examiner said an interesting sentence, that the standards in our country, yes they are, but they do not apply, because there is no such a law that would require them to apply absolutely just curious.
And by the way, even recently when I renewed for the next time the license is Mr. Examiner said an interesting sentence, that the standards in our country yes they are, but they are not mandatory, because there is no such a law that would require them to apply absolutely just curious.
This is determined by common sense, and aside from the fact that it is recognized technical knowledge (recognized by electricians in other countries), consider what, for example, the court takes into account when evaluating the work of an electrician?
It seems to me that the template you showed lacks a legal basis, that is, for example, on the basis of the Building Law of ..., article this and that, performed "what is required by the article of the PB" - for example, a 5-year review.
And if it is a protocol, then also in the attachments should be included photocopies of current authorization to perform the review.
then also in the attachments should be attached photocopies of current authorization to perform the review.
Copies not necessarily, but in the signature must be given the number of the qualification certificate. Of course, a photocopy is a convenient and certainly useful confirmation of the same, but not an obligation.
This is determined by common sense, and aside from the fact that this is recognized technical knowledge ( recognized by electricians in other countries) then consider what, for example, the court takes into account when evaluating the work of an electrician?
Of course right, common sense above all. When I wrote about standards, I meant that there is no need to refer to them in any protocol. This is a customary rule and not an obligation. As for the court is any decision whether to analyze the work of an electrician, plumber or doctor, the court is anyway based on documents and testimony of expert witnesses and not on the court's own analysis of, for example, standards To be clear I am not against standards, because every professional electrician should know them, because they are kind of a signpost in our work, but I'm not in favor of issuing protocols for the customer, where 10 standards are given, which tell the customer nothing and only make a "good impression"
retrofood wrote:
Photocopies not necessarily, but in the signature must be given qualification certificate number. Of course, a photocopy is a convenient and certainly useful confirmation of the same, but not an obligation
no it is obvious On the protocol will be at least the electrician's stamp with the qualification number.
misiek1111 wrote:
It seems to me that the pattern you have shown lacks the legal basis, that is, for example, on the basis of the Building Law of the day, article this and that, performed "what is required by the article of the PB" - for example, a 5-year review.
And here my friend is a little catch. Well, the Construction Law and specifically Article 62(1)(2) of the Act – Construction Law speaks of periodic, min, 5-year inspection of the technical condition of buildings, but already in Article 62(2) of the Act exempted from this obligation min, owners of single-family buildings So that from a formal point of view, there is no obligation to review the installation even every 5 years.
But I remind you that there is common sense and in the case of my clients home insurance. It is better to bide my time, but I do not refer in the protocol to a provision that in this case is simply dead All colleagues' comments are pertinent and I include them in the protocol. Thank you again for a substantive and very useful discussion.
this should also include in the attachments photocopies of current authorization to perform the review.
Copies not necessarily, but in the signature must be given the number of the qualification certificate. Of course, a photocopy is a convenient and certainly useful confirmation of the same, but not an obligation.
I think not. The authorities require a copy of the qualification, because on the basis of this they can determine whether the work was done by a qualified person. The number itself can be taken "from the ceiling" - without a copy of the document, it is difficult to verify its veracity.
This is determined by common sense, and aside from the fact that this is recognized technical knowledge ( recognized by electricians in other countries) then consider what, for example. court takes into account when evaluating the work of an electrician?
Of course right, common sense first and foremost. By writing about standards, I meant that there is no need to refer to them in any protocol. This is a customary rule and not an obligation.
Don't forget that measurement protocols are documents primarily for building inspectors, and for these people the bible is the building law and the WT for buildings and their location. And in the WT many standards are referred to, which for the building inspection is an oracle, not subject to discussion. So if you want your protocol not to be challenged (it's nothing that in court you would perhaps defend it), then cite the standards and follow them.
yaga2007 wrote:
misiek1111 wrote:
It seems to me that the model you showed lacks a legal basis, ie. on the basis of the Building Law of the day, article this and that, performed "what the article of the PB requires" - e.g., a 5-year review.
And here Fellow, there is a little catch. Well, the Construction Law and specifically Article 62(1)(2) of the Law – Construction Law speaks of periodic, min, 5-year inspection of the technical condition of buildings, but already in Article 62(2) of the Law exempted from this obligation min, owners of single-family buildings So that from a formal point of view, there is no obligation to review the installation even every 5 years.
I would advise you to read the paragraphs and points carefully, because you are the one who is caught on the hook.
yaga2007 wrote:
But I remind you that there is common sense and in the case of my home insurance clients. Better to be cool but I do not refer on the record to a provision that in this case is simply dead
I reiterate my recommendation for a thorough reading of the provisions of the Construction Law.
Quote:
2. The obligation of inspection referred to in paragraph 1 item 1 lit. a, shall not include owners and managers of: 1) single-family residential buildings;
And now look at what paragraph 1, point 1, letter a.
Quote:
Art. 62. 1. Construction objects shall be during their use inspected by the owner or manager: 1) periodic inspection, at least once a year, consisting in checking the technical condition:
a) elements of the building, structures and installations exposed to harmful atmospheric influences and destructive factors occurring during use of the facility,
Not a damn thing is written there about an exemption from the obligation to inspect the condition of the electrical system.
And now look at what paragraph 1, point 1, letter a. Quote: Article 62. 1. Construction objects should be during their use inspected by the owner or manager: 1) periodic inspection, at least once a year, consisting in checking the condition of the technical: a) elements of the building, structures and installations exposed to harmful influences atmospheric and destructive effects of factors occurring during use of the object,
Not written there about exemption from the obligation to inspect the condition of the electrical system.
And now buddy look into Article 62 paragraph 2 It just so happens that in law school they taught me to read the full articles and not their excerpts, and it often happens that a particular point in a paragraph provides exceptions for recipients of provisions placed in the preceding paragraphs, and in this case it is so. That I no longer quote the entire "disputed" article 62 I will quote only the first 2 paragraphs in the parts of interest to us (but I recommend reading the entire par. 62 of the Construction Law ) Cite: "Art. 62 of the Construction Law Inspections of construction objects during their use 1. Construction objects should be inspected by the owner or manager during their use: 1)periodic inspection, at least once a year, consisting in checking the technical condition of:
a) elements of the building, structures and installations exposed to harmful atmospheric influences and destructive actions of factors occurring during the use of the facility, b) installations and equipment for environmental protection, c) gas installations and chimney flues (smoke, flue and ventilation); 2) periodic, at least once every 5 years, consisting in checking the technical condition and suitability for use of the building facility, the aesthetics of the building facility and its surroundings; This inspection should also include an examination of the electrical and lightning protection system with regard to the state of efficiency of connections, fixtures, protections and means of protection from electric shock, insulation resistance of wires and grounding of installations and apparatuses;
3) periodic in the scope referred to in item 1, at least twice a year, on dates until May 31 and November 30, in the case of buildings with a building area exceeding 2,000 m2 and other buildings with a roof area exceeding 1,000 m2, the person carrying out the inspection is obliged to immediately notify the construction supervision authority in writing of the inspection carried out; 4) safe use of the facility each time in the event of the circumstances referred to in Art. 61pkt 2; 4a) in the event of notification by the occupants of a dwelling unit located in a building facility that unjustified technical or utility interferences or violations have been made, causing that the conditions set forth in Article 5 requirements for the building facility and building equipment paragraph 2 are not met. 5) (repealed) 6) (repealed) 1a. In the course of the inspection referred to in paragraph 1, the implementation of the recommendations of the previous inspection shall be verified.
2. The obligation of control referred to in paragraph 1, item 1, letter a, shall not extend to owners and managers of: 1) single-family residential buildings; 2) building structures: a) homestead and summer house construction, b) listed in Article 29 exemption from the obligation to obtain a building permit paragraph 1.
As you have already rightly pointed out in Article 62, paragraph 1, item 1, letter a. then please also pay attention to Article 62, paragraph 2, point 1 And I remind you that my thread is about the protocol for a single-family building.
Read col. carefully? : Exclusions from the obligation to carry out periodic inspections of the technical conditionswith In accordance with Article 62(2) of the Law – Construction Law from the obligation to annually check the technical condition of elements of the building, structures and installations exposed to harmful atmospheric influences and destructive actions of factors occurring during the use of the object, installations and devices for the protection of the environment (checks referred to in Art. 62(1)(1)(a) of the Law – Construction Law) were exempted owners and managers of single-family residential buildings, homestead and holiday buildings, as well as the entire group of buildings listed in Art. 29(1) of the Construction Law. These facilities are, however, subject to annual inspection to the remaining extent, if they obviously have elements subject to the checks referred to in Art. 62(1)(1)(b) and (c) of the Law – Construction Law, and are subject to the five-year inspection referred to in Article 62(1)(2) of the Law.
It so happens that in law school they taught me to read the full articles and not their excerpts, and it often happens that a given point in a paragraph provides exceptions for the recipients of the provisions placed in the preceding paragraphs, and in this case it is so.
Nonsense, nonsense nonsense.
Shame! Lawyer has been found.
Now the colleague will read these exceptions a (especially the scope of exemptions) and stop repeating nonsense. In my opinion, a warning. The obligation to inspect does not apply to the scope of paragraph.1 point1(a), and somehow I do not see there periodic inspections of installations. And rightly that I do not see because they are in paragraph.1 , point.2 and are not subject to exemptions.
As you have rightly pointed out Article 62, paragraph 1, item 1, letter a. then please also pay attention to Art. 62, para. 2, pt. 1
Art. 62, para. 2 only applies to the subject matter referred to in paragraph 1(1)(a). And you won't change it even if you burst! That is, it applies to
Quote:
a) elements of the building, structures and installations exposed to harmful atmospheric influences and destructive effects occurring during the use of the object,
Now the colleague will read these exceptions a (especially the scope of exemptions) and stop repeating nonsense.
jann111 wrote:
The obligation to inspect does not apply to the scope of paragraph.1, point1(a). paragraph1(a), and somehow I don't see periodic inspections of installations there. And rightly I don't see because they are in paragraph1 , paragraph2 and are not subject to exemptions.
Yes, right I sprinkle my head with ashes. You are right, the exclusion does not apply to electrical inst. Better to do something in excess than not to do it at all.
What about the warning then go ahead, I will not be offended. On the other hand, I believe that the forum is precisely for teaching, instructing and advising and it's great that it happens here.
What about "my protocol" is the topic of standards embraced because my partner will put the relevant standards in each measurement protocol and I put the PN-HD 60364-6 standard on the "main" protocol
P.S> jann111 I'm not a lawyer. Everyone, even a judge has the right to make a mistake.
But my friend nothing lost, these days with this legal "knowledge" you could quietly get hired as an undersecretary of state in the MS.
And with this you captured me I graduated in labor law, because I had to as a department head managing a team of people But actually when I read for myself what nonsense I wrote out, I laugh at myself ;P I can only explain myself with fatigue because the last 2 months are probably difficult for all of us and the brain does not comprehend.
But it's great that I have you more experienced and maybe not yet brain-dead like me As for my protocol I am sending the last version. Take a look if it can be and I close the topic
A colleague forgot one important point in this protocol. This is about the person who approves the protocol, who is not necessarily the one who performs this inspection (measurements), or even writes the w/w. Well, and the number of the protocol, because there may be more of them in a given year/period.
Just an assessment of the visual inspection for me too laconic. The visual inspection for me is much more important than some tables with calculations. There should still be diagrams or sketches with a description so that you can identify the tested circuits or devices. And, of course, comments and recommendations, which if you want, you can always find. .
The discussion revolves around the periodic inspection of electrical installations in single-family houses, which is mandated every five years for insurance purposes. The author conducted various tests, including insulation condition, insulation resistance, grounding resistance, electric shock protection effectiveness, and residual current circuit breaker testing, all yielding satisfactory results. The client requested a formal inspection protocol, prompting inquiries about its content and necessary measurements. Participants emphasized the importance of referencing applicable standards, such as PN-HD 60364-6, and including legal bases in the protocol. The conversation also highlighted the need for visual inspection assessments, diagrams, and the qualifications of the inspector in the documentation. Discrepancies in legal interpretations regarding inspection obligations were debated, with a consensus on the necessity of thorough documentation to avoid challenges from building inspectors. Summary generated by the language model.
.
But actually when I read for myself what nonsense I wrote out, I laugh at myself ;P 