Legal Articles

Lifting the S133 restriction becomes a reality

Home / Knowledge base / Lifting the S133 restriction becomes a reality

Posted by Carol Matthews on 16 February 2017

Carol Matthews - Social Housing Solicitor
Carol Matthews Partner

As many readers will be aware, we have been lobbying for a number of years, alongside the Longhurst Housing Group and the National Housing Federation, for the repeal of the section 133 restrictions in titles of LSVT properties to create what will almost be a “level playing field” between traditional and LSVT Registered Providers in terms of their stock values.  

The reason for this is quite straight forward. When housing stock was transferred from a local authority a restriction (a S133 Restriction) was registered at the Land Registry on the title in the following form:

“RESTRICTION: No disposition by the proprietor of the registered estate or in exercise of the power of sale or leasing  in any registered charge (except an exempt disposal as defined by section 81(8) of the Housing Act 1988) is to be registered without the consent of the Secretary of State to that disposition under the provisions of section 133 of that Act”

For funding purposes, valuers value RP’s stock using the RICS “Red Book” either on the basis of Existing Use Value (EUV) or the higher Market Value Subject to Tenancy valuation (MV-STT), both being percentages of the open market value of the housing stock. Valuers take the view that a S133 Restriction on the title will limit the use of the stock to “affordable housing” so the only possible valuation that can be applied is the lower EUV. This has had significant impact on the value LSVT Registered Providers can borrow using its security. If Section 133 was repealed LSVT stock could be valued at the higher MV-STT valuation.

The Housing & Planning Act 2016 has provisions for the repeal of the consent regime for the disposal of stock owned by Registered Providers including the S133 Restriction and also the S172 restrictions which opens the door to the higher valuations. The provisions are due to be implemented on 6 April 2017.

Funders and valuers are taking a cautious approach on the impact of the Section 133 Restriction repeal. The funding agreements of the LSVT Registered Providers need to allow for a MV-STT valuation and there is likely to be a caution in uplifting valuations to the higher value of MV-STT where there are large estates of stock concentrated in one area – we could be looking at a new category of valuation between EUV and MV-STT in these circumstances. However, there is no doubt that this repeal will have a significant and welcome benefit in valuation terms. It is likely that a test case on its impact will be undertaken later this year. 

About the author

Carol has been a leading solicitor in social housing for over twenty-five years. One interviewee for the Chambers’ directory stated, she is someone who "lives and breathes social housing.”

Carol Matthews

Carol has been a leading solicitor in social housing for over twenty-five years. One interviewee for the Chambers’ directory stated, she is someone who "lives and breathes social housing.”

Recent articles

30 July 2020 Rethinking the landlord / tenant relationship

We have been following the travails of the high street for over 12 months where changing shopping habits, business rates and rent increases have been contributing to a growing strain on many landlord / tenant relationships. The Covid-19 pandemic has not only turned a bad situation critical for many retailers and hospitality venues but has also turned the spotlight on the wider commercial sector too. Almost all businesses operating across the country have suffered financially to a greater or lesser extent as result of the economic downturn precipitated by the imposition of lockdown in March.

Read article
30 July 2020 Bankrupts fail in claim to have interests in land revested in them

The claim by Mr and Mrs Brake (Brake v Swift), heard in the High Court in May, to have a cottage and adjacent land revested in them under Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, was set against a background of convoluted litigation extending over a number of years, described by Matthews HHJ as ‘complex’. The claimants had been made bankrupt in 2015 and the matter before the Court concentrated on whether or not the property concerned was, indeed, the claimants’ principal residence at the time of the bankruptcy.

Read article
29 July 2020 Remote witnessing of wills – a sign of the times

The law governing how a will is witnessed dates back to 1837 and for good reason. The requirement for two people (neither of whom can inherit from the will they are witnessing) to be physically present at the signing of a will is designed to, among other things, prevent fraud and the exercise of undue influence. That is, until the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Read article
How can we help?
01926 732512