Spain's DGT revokes approval for four V-16 beacons

Spain's Traffic Directorate (DGT) revokes approval for four sold V-16 beacons

Just days before the connected V-16 beacon becomes the only legal device to signal a breakdown on Spanish roads, the DGT has published a new list of models whose certification is no longer valid. Four certificates have moved to the "expired validity" category. Three affected models are the V16IoT, manufactured in China by Yuyao Jiming Electronic for Ledel Solutions and sold under the brands Don Feliz, The Boutique For Your Car, and Ikrea. The fourth is the XL-HZ-001-VC, made in Spain and marketed by Ditraimon under the Call SOS brand.

The issue isn't just the withdrawal. It's that the official list has become a living document that changes without notifying consumers. Someone who bought an approved beacon may discover months later that their device appears on the "invalid" list and technically no longer complies with the General Vehicle Regulations.

What happens if you already bought one of the withdrawn beacons

The explanation on the DGT website suggests manufacturers cannot continue producing units of these models. However, it is understood that customers who acquired them can continue using them for the next 12 years, until the included connectivity period expires. In other words: the beacon works, emits, and connects, but its certificate is no longer active.

This is where the maze begins. Article 11 of the General Vehicle Regulations requires devices to be approved and active. If the model has been removed from the official list, the beacon fails to meet the requirement. The fine for not carrying the appropriate device is €200. The likelihood of an agent checking the specific model during a control is low, but it exists. And it is not the only risk.

Why the DGT revoked approval for these beacons

The DGT clarifies that these were devices that originally passed approval tests, but subsequent batches presented quality problems. "These are beacons that met requirements in an initial approval but failed to meet the required quality criteria when they had to renew the certificate and pass the tests again," the agency states.

A version circulating among those affected adds another factor: some of the involved companies may have gone bankrupt. If the manufacturer disappears, the beacon remains technically disconnected, because connection data goes first to the company, which then forwards it to the DGT. Without the company, there is no certificate renewal. Without a certificate, the device enters the "invalid" category.

The DGT's new list: a third category nobody asked for

Until now, there were approved beacons and non-approved beacons. The DGT has introduced a third category: "Brands and models with expired certificates." An administrative limbo where the device exists, works, and was bought in good faith, but is no longer on the list of valid ones.

The practical result is that consumers must check the list periodically to see if their beacon remains valid. As if road safety depended on a certificate auction that renews or falls apart depending on whether the manufacturer pays the fee or closes shop. The beacon thus becomes a product with an administrative expiration date, not a technical one.

The risk nobody mentions: insurers and adjusters

The €200 fine is the visible problem. The invisible one is the insurer. In the event of a claim, the adjuster may verify if the signaling device was approved and active at the time of the accident. If it wasn't, the company has grounds to dispute coverage or apply contributory negligence for failing to comply with current safety regulations.

This is not a far-fetched hypothesis. Insurers look for any loophole to pay less. A device removed from the official list is a perfect loophole. The driver who bought an approved beacon and discovers months later it is no longer compliant finds that their legal "security" depended on a document that changes without prior notice.

What alternatives do consumers have regarding the withdrawal of approval?

Options are limited. The first is to check if the specific model is on the valid list and, if not, assume the risk. The second is to buy a new beacon from a manufacturer that maintains updated approval. The third, starting to circulate as a pragmatic solution, is to have an official device for inspection and not rely on it as the sole tool.

The underlying problem is that the obligation to carry a connected beacon coexists with a certification system that does not guarantee stability. The manufacturer may go bankrupt, the batch may fail, or the renewal may not pass tests. And the consumer, who bought what they were told was legal, is left with a device that works but is no longer valid. How long will it take for the next list to exclude another model?