Allocation questionnaireThe most important change to come out of the 21st Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) update is the new allocation questionnaire, the form N150.

So I was surprised that the new form has been omitted from the paper copy of the Stationery Office update.

Attempts to access it via the Lord Chancellor's Department and Court Service Web sites were equally unsuccessful.

Fortunately, my court staff had already obtained a batch of the new forms, and came to my rescue.The concertina format of the old allocation questionnaire form drove anyone who had tried to photocopy it mad.

That has gone, to be replaced with a single-side four page A4 document.But the real change is in the content of the form.

All of the questions have been revised in the light of experience since April 1999.

To take but one example, where no pre-action protocol applies to a claim it will now be necessary to state whether information and/or documents have nevertheless been exchanged to try to settle the claim.

All the case management information is gathered together on the second page.However, the greatest joy comes in the 'costs' section.

The form asks for estimates of the party's costs to date and to trial, but then says that 'in substantial cases' these questions should be answered in compliance with the costs practice direction.

So in straightforward cases, for instance those in the fast track, there need not in future be the expense of preparing a full cost schedule.

Hopefully at some stage soon this welcome change in the run-of-the-mill cases will be reflected also in the wording of s.6 of the practice direction about costs.The new form is available now.

But to allow practitioners a little run-in time, courts will accept the old format until 31 March 2001.When in force?The new allocation questionnaire is mandatory from 1 April 2001 (seriously); all that follows comes into force on 12 February 2001.Where do I sue when the judge gets it wrong?There was an apparent conflict between, on the one hand, r.7.11(1) which states that a claim under s.7(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of a judicial act may be brought only in the High Court and, on the other, PD2B para 15 w hich said that -- in the county court -- a district judge or recorder may not try such a claim.

It was unclear whether the practice direction was intended to cover the possibility of such a claim being transferred down from the High Court to the county court for trial by a circuit judge.

The problem has now been solved: PD2B para 15 has been deleted.

Simple!The claimant's addressThe notes for completing the claim forms for both pts 7 and 8 (forms N1 and N208) make it clear that the claimant's residential address has to be given at the top of the first page of the claim form.

But this often gets overlooked where solicitors are acting; the solicitor's business address is frequently given instead.

An amendment to PD16 reminds us all of what actually is required.False statementsWhat does one do when the other side signs off a statement of case containing a false statement? Or the disclosure statement is signed without an honest belief in its truth? PDs 22 and 31 now contain fresh paragraphs directing attention to an equally new PD32 para 27 where the procedure is all set out.

In essence, the party alleging the contempt should bring the matter -- on application -- before the court dealing with the claim.

The judge will consider whether contempt proceedings are appropriate in the light of the overriding objective in pt 1 and, if satisfied, will direct the aggrieved party to refer the matter to the Attorney-General.AppealsPD52 (Appeals) retains its record of having been amended in every update since its promulgation in May last year.

This time, a printing error at para 2A.5 is corrected to make it clear that an appeal from an application to enforce a final decision is not in itself a 'final decision' and should therefore follow the usual appeal routes, i.e.

district judge to circuit judge etc.

Have a look at PD52 para 2 if you are not sure what constitutes 'a final decision'.And if you deal in appeals from Social Security Commissioners or Immigration Appeal Tribunals then you will need to take a look at the amended PD52 paras 21.5 and 21.7.Oops!On the subject of appeals, what if you want to appeal a decision under pt 30 to transfer your case from Truro to Newcastle? PD30 para 5 contained some out-of-date references to the old pre-May 2000 appeal rules.

That has now been sorted out.

The new pt 52 appeal rules will apply.Where the transferring and receiving courts are both county courts, the appeal should normally be made in the receiving court for that court ought to have the relevant court file -- but the appeal can be remitted back to the transferring court if that is more convenient.Do you need to appeal? In most instances, probably not.

The decision to transfer will most likely have been made by the district judge when making case management decisions.

Or it might have been an automatic transfer situation.

Either way, make a pt 23 application for the district judge at the receiving court to consider.

In a clear-cut case she/he might make the order you seek without requiring a hearing.Paid your parking fine?Not the stuff of everyday life in the average high street practice, but if you have a client -- or a wayward partner -- with a handful of parking fines you might like to look at a new practice direction dealing with the enforcement of parking penalties under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

It supplements the procedure in CCR Ord 48B that still survives in Sched 2 to the CPR.TweaksThere have been minor tweaks to the forms attached to the insolvency and directors disqualification practice directions.

It is not nec essary to labour them here.I would like to be able to say the same about the Welsh version of the devolution issues practice direction, but my knowledge of Welsh does not inspire such confidence.

The annotations produced by The Stationery Office suggest that the changes are inconsequential, but those of you who enjoy that lovely language may wish to check for yourselves.And finallyThe rules committee has signed off the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2001.

They make a miscellany of minor changes, which are to come into effect on 26 March 2001.

More, obviously, will be written about them nearer the time.But the main thrust of the new rules relate to possession claims and landlord and tenant cases.

Basically, these topics are being brought within the main body of the CPR: the corresponding rules that have limped on in Scheds 1 and 2 are revoked.There is a lot of work to be done drafting the new forms and the necessary practice directions, as well as giving the profession time to adjust its operating systems, so the rules will not come into force until 15 October 2001.

Don't get complacent: that is only eight months away.