Unwritten agreements have a problem: nothing is written. It seems silly but it is more than obvious. When there is talk of a “reasonable period” or “being flexible” but nothing is signed, the truth is that there are reasons to be suspicious. Because nothing and no one prevents breaking that supposed agreement with which all parties agree.
Or if not, tell those who have been fined for not having the V-16 beacons.
They are already fining. This is what they assure from Pyramid Consulting. This consultancy, specialized in appealing traffic fines, already indicates that its offices have received a penalty because a driver did not have the V-16 light to signal a dangerous situation.
The penalty is 80 euros, as we already had in Xatakaand it reads that the reason for the sanction is “not having the corresponding V-16 regulatory sign installed on the vehicle.” The penalty was imposed on January 6, Three Kings’ Day, and the gift will be a financial penalty of 40 euros if the driver accepts prompt payment.
“A reasonable period”. Penalizing a driver on January 6, 2026 for not having a V-16 beacon raises blisters among drivers. And Fernando Grande-Marlaska, Minister of the Interior, and Pere Navarro, director of the DGT, were faced with a pool full of contradictions and decided to jump into it headlong.
In December 2025, faced with the prospect that drivers were not going to have the V-16 beacon on time, the DGT already announced that there would be no extensions in the application of the measure because, in their words, there would be no point in delaying it to the summer of 2026 since the situation would be exactly the same. Of course, they indicated that they had considered delaying it.
However, that same month of December, the director of the DGT himself indicated that agents “will be flexible” so fines were not expected, at least, in the first days. They talked about “consolidating this issue” without having to deal with a barrage of fines. On January 8, Grande-Marlaska defended that the beacon was not tax collection, that “information would take precedence over the sanction” and that fines would not be imposed. a “reasonable” period of time. By then, Pyramid Consulting’s client had already been sanctioned.
They think they are right. From the consultancy they assure that they are going to appeal the fine. The reasons they allege are that articles 9 and 103 of the Spanish Constitution specify that the Administration must guarantee the legal security of citizens. And they point out that the Administration’s actions must comply with and be:
- Foreseeable
- Transparent
- Consistent
- Adjusted to good faith
They assure that Grande-Marlaska’s statements, in which it was suggested that the agents would not sanction “in a reasonable period of time,” invalidates the sanction and generates legal uncertainty for the citizen since a safeguard message is sent that in the end has not been fulfilled.
The contradictions. The problem here is that those responsible for the Ministry of the Interior and the DGT sent messages that contradicted what is stated in the law. Both assured that there would be no fine for not having the beacon and not using it but, at the same time, they neither offered a specific time period nor was any type of order approved in which this was reflected.
This left it up to the agents how to act. And if they considered that a car was not correctly signaling its position, there were sufficient reasons to sanction it, according to the approved regulations. And although the DGT’s public message was in the direction of not fining, the agents themselves have recognized that they have no order to act in this way.
Photo | DGT and Pyramid Consulting
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings