Credit Hire Witness Statement: Section-by-Section Drafting Guide

In most credit hire claims the claimant's statement is the only factual evidence the court gets on need, period and impecuniosity. Once served it stands as evidence in chief, and there is no automatic right to fill the gaps from the witness box. This is the section-by-section build, with a clear line between what the rules require and what is simply convention.

What the statement has to do in a credit hire claim

A witness statement is a written statement, signed by a person, containing the evidence that person would be allowed to give orally. Where the witness is called, it stands as their evidence in chief. They can amplify it only with the court's permission, and permission comes only if there is good reason not to confine the evidence to what is already there. If the statement does not deal with something, assume the court will not hear about it.

The Court of Appeal in Zurich Insurance Plc v Umerji [2014] EWCA Civ 357 described reasonableness in a credit hire claim as conventionally assessed by reference to three elements, labelled need, rate and duration. The burden of pleading and proving sits with the claimant.

So the job is narrow. The statement carries the facts on need, the facts that drive duration, and the facts on impecuniosity where it is pleaded. It does not carry the rate argument, and it does not carry the law. For the rules on form, service and statements of truth, see our companion guide to CPR Part 32 and credit hire. If you would rather this structure was applied for you, our witness statement drafting software builds the draft from the case documents and runs automated CPR Part 32 compliance checks over it.

Section by section: the structure that works

First, the distinction that matters. Practice Direction 32 requires certain content. It does not prescribe section headings and it does not prescribe an order. Paragraph 19.2 says only that it is "usually convenient" for a statement to follow the chronological sequence of events. That is guidance about what reads well, not a mandated layout.

The required content is this. The statement must, if practicable, be in the witness's own words, must in any event be drafted in their own language, and should be in the first person. It must give the witness's name, address, occupation and party status. It must state the process by which it was prepared, for example face to face, by telephone or through an interpreter. It must separate what is from the witness's own knowledge from what is information or belief, and give the source of the latter. Exhibits must be verified by the witness and kept separate. And it must carry a statement of truth in the prescribed form.

Against that, a running order that works. Treat it as convention, not command.

Formal opening. Name, address, occupation, party status.
How this statement was prepared. Face to face, telephone or video, on what dates, whether an interpreter was used, whether it was read back before signature. Required, and the paragraph most often missing.
Knowledge and belief. Not a formality in credit hire, where a claimant has no first-hand knowledge of how a rate was built.
Background and the accident, in the claimant's own account.
The vehicle. What it was, how long owned, what it was used for, inspection date, engineer's decision, and when the claimant was told.
Need for hire.
How the replacement was arranged. Who the claimant spoke to and in what order, what they understood was happening, what they signed and when.
The hire vehicle and the period. What was supplied, when it arrived, when it went back, why it ended when it did.
Impecuniosity, if pleaded.
Exhibits, referred to as the statement goes along rather than dumped at the end.
Statement of truth and signature.

Need for hire: the section most often underdone

"I needed my car for work and for family commitments" tells a judge nothing that can be tested. Cover this instead, in the claimant's own words:

Who used the vehicle, and for what. Journeys, destinations, frequency, times of day. Commuting, school runs, caring responsibilities, medical appointments, shift patterns that do not fit a timetable.
Other vehicles in the household. How many, who is insured to drive them, and whether they were actually available. Silence here invites the obvious question, and it will be asked.
Public transport, tested rather than dismissed. Which route, what cost, what journey time, and why it did not work.
What was considered and rejected. Lifts, taxis, a short-term rental paid for directly.
When need arose and when it ended.

Establishing need does not by itself secure the hire claim. In Wiltshire v Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company of Europe [2025] EWCC 13 the court accepted need was made out and still awarded only three weeks of loss of use at the defendant's basic hire rate, because the claimant was not impecunious and the vehicle was an obvious write-off from the start.

Period and rate: what the statement should and should not try to argue

Period is a factual question and the statement is where the facts live. Give the dates that drive it. Date of accident and of the vehicle becoming unusable. Date of inspection and by whom. Date the total loss or repair decision was communicated, and by whom. Date any payment was received. Date a replacement was sourced and hire ended, with the reason for any gap. Every unexplained gap in that timeline is a period argument for the defendant.

Rate is where statements overreach. A claimant is not usually competent to give evidence about comparable market rates in their area at the relevant time. A paragraph asserting the rate charged was reasonable and in line with the local market is an assertion the witness cannot support from their own knowledge, which sits badly against the requirement to separate knowledge from belief. It also hands the defendant a productive line of cross-examination on a point the claimant was never going to win.

Rate belongs in basic hire rate evidence and in submission. Keep it out, other than the plain facts the claimant does know, such as what they were told the arrangement would cost and whether they were offered an alternative. The same goes for legal argument.

Impecuniosity, where it applies, and the evidence that supports it

Impecuniosity is pleaded, or it is not. Decide before drafting.

The principle comes from Lagden v O'Connor [2003] UKHL 64, where the House of Lords held that a claimant who cannot afford to hire on the open market may recover the full credit hire cost, including the additional benefits bundled into it, because they had no realistic choice. Lord Nicholls framed the test as an inability to pay hire charges without making sacrifices the claimant could not reasonably be expected to make.

Two later points matter for drafting. Umerji confirmed that impecuniosity goes to duration as well as rate, and that once it is in play the claimant must give disclosure about their means. In Diriye v Bojaj [2020] EWCA Civ 1400 the Court of Appeal was dealing with a pleading that went no further than a bare assertion. A bare assertion is not a case.

So the section needs figures, not adjectives. Income at the date of hire and its source. Regular outgoings and committed expenditure. Savings, and what they were earmarked for. Credit facilities, including whether a card existed, its limit, and how much headroom was actually available. Then the conclusion the claimant can properly draw, which is why paying several hundred pounds up front and waiting for reimbursement was not realistic.

On the evidence window, it is common for defendants to seek, and for courts to direct, around three months of bank statements and payslips either side of the hire. That is a practice convention and a case management pattern, not a rule laid down in the CPR. Check the directions in your own case. Our fuller treatment of the authorities is in impecuniosity in credit hire.

If impecuniosity is not pleaded, say nothing about the claimant's finances. Half a paragraph hinting at hardship without pleading it is worse than silence.

Own words, not templates: what Wiltshire v Aioi actually criticised

Wiltshire v Aioi Nissay Dowa is a County Court decision, so persuasive rather than binding. Read it carefully all the same, because the criticism is precise and easy to overstate.

The claim sought around £50,190, of which £47,925.60 was credit hire. It recovered £1,175. The operative reason was that the credit hire, recovery and storage agreements were unenforceable. Hire began on 11 May 2023 but the agreements were not signed until 13 June 2023, documentation was addressed to the claimant's wife rather than to him, and he did not give informed consent at the outset because he believed throughout that he was dealing with his own insurer.

The witness statement point was not why the agreements failed. It was why the claimant's written evidence carried no weight. At trial there was a stark contrast between his oral account and his statement, and he told the court that much of its content was neither his words nor his understanding. DJ Lumb recorded that the statement "followed a template precedent that in the Court's experience is almost always used by Winn solicitors", and continued:

"That credit hire litigation can be characterised as bulk litigation does not excuse an overreliance on a prescribed process of precedent documents including witness statements. There is still an obligation to ensure that any witness statement complies with CPR Part 32 and the Practice Direction thereto. Blind following of a company process is no substitute for understanding these requirements."

That is not a ruling that precedents are impermissible. The Practice Direction itself requires the witness's own words only "if practicable", which contemplates that a fee-earner will do the drafting. What drew criticism was a process in which the precedent supplied the content and the witness supplied only a signature.

The practical test is simple. Read the statement back paragraph by paragraph and ask the client to explain each one in their own words. Anything they cannot explain should not be there. That is the argument for guided drafting over template filling, and the design principle behind the witness statement tooling in LegalDocs Assist. Our case analysis is at Wiltshire v Aioi and your witness statements.

The mistakes that cost claimants money

No preparation-process paragraph. Required content, routinely absent.
No knowledge and belief split, so the whole statement reads as first-hand when parts plainly are not.
Need asserted rather than evidenced. Adjectives instead of journeys.
Silence on other household vehicles.
An unexplained gap in the period timeline.
Rate opinion the claimant cannot support, which turns a neutral witness into a poor one under cross-examination.
Legal argument in the body of the statement.
Impecuniosity as a bare assertion, with no figures behind it.
The wrong statement of truth wording. The current form reads: "I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth."
Uninitialled alterations and format defects. An altered statement without initials can only be used with permission, and where a statement does not comply with Part 32 or the Practice Direction as to its form, the court may refuse to admit it and refuse the costs of preparing it.

Before it is signed: the final check

Read it back to the client in full, not a summary, and ask them to explain each paragraph.
Check every date and figure against the exhibits, particularly hire start and end, the signature date on the agreements, and any payment dates.
Check the exhibit references, kept separate and numbered consecutively across statements.
Check the required content is present. Name, address, occupation, party status, preparation process, knowledge and belief.
Check the statement of truth wording, the signature and the date.
Ask whether any sentence is one the client could not hold up under cross-examination. If so, take it out.

None of that is difficult. It is just work that has to be done case by case, which is precisely the work a template is designed to avoid.

FAQ

What sections should a credit hire witness statement include?

The rules require content rather than headings. Practice Direction 32 requires the witness's name, address, occupation and party status, the process by which the statement was prepared, a split between own knowledge and information or belief with the source given, and a statement of truth in the prescribed form. The section order most practitioners use is convention, not rule.

How do you evidence need for hire in a witness statement?

With specifics that can be tested. Who used the vehicle and for which journeys, at what frequency and at what times. Other vehicles in the household, who could drive them and whether they were available. Public transport by reference to the actual route, cost and journey time rather than dismissed in a line. What alternatives were considered and why they did not work. Failing to evidence need properly will usually reduce the award.

Should impecuniosity go in the witness statement?

Only if it is pleaded, and only with figures behind it. Where impecuniosity is relied on the claimant carries the burden of proving it, and disclosure about means follows. A bare assertion is not enough, as the Court of Appeal made clear in Diriye v Bojaj. Set out income, regular outgoings, savings and available credit at the date of hire, and explain why paying up front was not realistic. If impecuniosity is not being pleaded, leave the claimant's finances out entirely.

Why do template witness statements get criticised by the courts?

Not because precedents are impermissible. The Practice Direction requires the witness's own words only so far as practicable, which assumes a fee-earner drafts it. The criticism in Wiltshire v Aioi Nissay Dowa was directed at a process in which the template supplied the content and the witness supplied only a signature, so the statement contained assertions the claimant did not recognise as his. Volume litigation does not remove the obligation to comply with Part 32 and its Practice Direction.