Outsourcing trends

Operators opting to outsource their R&M have a wide choice of packages available to them, whether using main truck manufacturer dealerships or local independent garages.

The majority of operators tended to opt for a contract with their maintenance providers (72%), while the remaining 28% preferred an ad-hoc approach. Those choosing a contractual route was up substantially from 65% last year, however this may reflect the increase in larger operator respondents compared with the 2021 survey. Indeed, 79% of those running more than 50 trucks opted for an R&M contract, whereas this figure dropped to 69% picking a contract when running 10 or fewer vehicles.

We looked at operator preferences in terms of the type of contract. Half of those with contracts preferred a price-per-truck option, with a further 39% opting for a fixed price-per-month model. Only 4% chose a price-per-km model.

Some maintenance providers, particularly those linked to truck manufacturers, offer tailored R&M packages. These are often tiered, with top-tier packages providing complete service contracts, moving down to more basic contracts offering service, MoTs and so on. We asked respondents their preferred option: 63% opted for a top-tier contract, which included features such as roadside

Type of tiered contract

Basic contract (including MoT, preventative maintenance and tachograph calibration)

16%

Mid-tier contract (including maintenance, service, guarantee or warranty extensions)

21% 63%

Top-tier contract (including features such as roadside repairs, zero tolerance on downtime etc)

repairs and zero tolerance on downtime. The largest operators were significantly more likely to pick a top-tier option (74%) than operators running up to 10 trucks (59%).

Mid-tier contracts that included maintenance, service, guarantee or warranty extensions were chosen by 21%, down from 25% in 2021. And 16% went for a basic contract – substantially down from 30% in 2021.

The top reason cited for those not using an R&M contract was ‘too expensive’ for 40% of respondents, while 27% felt it did not meet their operational needs; 18% did not want to commit to a contract, while other reasons listed included warranty cover, unreliability of dealerships and long waits for workshop slots.

Reasons for not choosing a R&M contract

Too expensive

Doesn’t meet operational needs Don’t want to commit long-term

Other

18% 16% 15% 16%

27% 26%

2022 2021

40% 42%

0 10 20 30 40 50

Supported by