Vehicle Tracking & Fleet Telematics · Data Sheet
Vehicle Tracking Financial Results
Evidence-led results from an anonymised fleet review, showing the scale of the commercial findings and the modelled effect of alternative service specifications.
Results
Each measure against its evidence status
Scroll table sideways →
| Measure | Result | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Fleet already outside original contract position | 54.2% of vehicles | Verified baseline |
| Fleet still carrying contractual exposure | 45.8% of vehicles | Verified baseline |
| Negotiated reduction in modelled remaining liability | 81.7% | Negotiated outcome |
| Incumbent like-for-like recurring reduction | 8.3% | Negotiated / modelled |
| Strongest alternative like-for-like reduction | 43.6% | Modelled supplier scenario |
| Other alternative like-for-like reduction | 32.3% | Modelled supplier scenario |
| Incumbent recovery-only reduction | 28.9% | Modelled supplier scenario |
| Alternative recovery-only reduction | 62.6% | Modelled supplier scenario |
| Strongest recovery-only reduction | 73.9% | Modelled supplier scenario |
Why none of the recurring figures is called realised
The source pack documents quotations and negotiation outcomes, not final implementation evidence. The recurring supplier reductions are therefore quoted or modelled throughout.
The liability settlement is presented as negotiated. The warranty credit is presented as supplier-acknowledged for processing, not as cash already received.
Baseline structure
The recurring cost was a stack, not a charge
Scroll table sideways →
| Component | Share of baseline | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Core fleet-management service | 80.1% | The dominant cost block. Functionality and utilisation therefore matter materially. |
| Primary backup / secondary tracking | 9.8% | A meaningful secondary cost, which must be tested against recovery and insurance requirements. |
| Extended warranty | 9.5% | Large enough to justify contract-by-contract validation rather than treating warranty as incidental. |
| Additional backup on selected vehicles | 0.6% | Small in aggregate, but useful evidence of product layering across the fleet. |
Each component has a different operational purpose and a different opportunity for challenge, which is why the reconstruction went to component level rather than per-vehicle total.
Billing and warranty
One finding produced a credit, the other produced an argument
A defined exception schedule identified extended-warranty charges continuing beyond the relevant contract end on nine vehicles. The incumbent confirmed the detailed credit breakdown and submitted it for internal approval. On that schedule, 100% of the quantified post-contract warranty charges were acknowledged for credit processing.
A separate warranty-efficiency issue was also identified: charges levied during periods when manufacturer warranty would ordinarily still exist. The commercial concern was valid, but the contract position did not support treating the full amount as recoverable.
The distinction matters and is preserved in the result: an inefficient charge is not automatically an overcharge.
Contract exposure
Making a barrier into a line item
The fleet could not be treated as though every vehicle were free to move. The review modelled the remaining contractual exposure on the committed portion and then negotiated a materially lower exit settlement.
The agreed settlement represented about 18.3% of the modelled remaining liability — an 81.7% reduction in the exposure carried into the business case. That is what allowed switching to be evaluated as a transparent cost rather than dismissed as impossible.
Service rightsizing
Two specifications, run deliberately
Scroll table sideways →
| Scenario | Reduction against audited baseline | Commercial meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Incumbent, broader feature set | 8.3% | Renegotiation improved pricing without changing provider, but retained a costly service structure. |
| Alternative, broader feature set | 43.6% | Strongest like-for-like market-tested reduction. |
| Second alternative, broader feature set | 32.3% | The next full-service option tested. |
| Incumbent, recovery only | 28.9% | Rightsizing alone produced a substantial reduction, before changing provider. |
| Alternative, recovery only | 62.6% | Reduced specification with a different provider. |
| Strongest, recovery only | 73.9% | The largest modelled reduction — a materially different service. |
Running both specifications prevented a full-featured bundle from becoming the automatic benchmark simply because it was the incumbent configuration.