Estate agents should not be allowed to claim a property is in Castleknock, when it's not

Pray tell - what "laws" exactly do you think I am not willing to accept? And by exactly I mean the name of the act that you think applies.
 
This is Johnjane's first thread and first post so it couldn't have started in Letting off Steam and besides ... it is a serious economic issue of course :rolleyes:
 
JohnJane is making a very valid point. It's like calling all sprouts 'brussel sprouts' even though they're not all from Brussels.
 
If people are aware of the difference between the "real" Castleknock and the pretenders (as pointed out by the OP on this thread) then there's no issue here as nobody is being duped.
I used to live in the area and it was nice but nothing special. I don't see why people would get so precious about it.
I agree that the locals have a massive hang-up about this issue. I'm not sure why.
 
The laws I'm referring to is when barony was superceded in authority to create counties and townlands. Would you disagree with county divides just because the old barony boundaries are showing different? You can't of course. I believe the barony was superceded 1890 something. Its like calling parts of mayo lucan. Its not acceptable just because it happened to belong within a historic boundary that is no longer an authority.
 
This is a serious issue people - only last year, the citizens of what was formerly North Riding of Tipperary are now lumped with South Riding denizens into something called County Tipperary with no regard for the distress caused.
 
It's a serious issue when it's unfairly and illegally costing people money around the country. Yes it is serious. Maybe just not to you personally but there are at least tens of thousands of people affected.
 
Johnjane said:
The laws I'm referring to is when barony was superceded in authority to create counties and townlands. Would you disagree with county divides just because the old barony boundaries are showing different? You can't of course. I believe the barony was superceded 1890 something. Its like calling parts of mayo lucan. Its not acceptable just because it happened to belong within a historic boundary that is no longer an authority.
Click to expand...

<sigh>
so you are still incapable of citing anything concrete to back yourself up. Since you have only managed to come up with a decade and a rough idea that it was something to do with counties and townlands (both of which predate the decade you alighted on). I assume you are attempting to cherry pick your local government acts? Bear in mind there have been a few changes since the 1890s.

The barony is actually not relevant. I have no desire to reinstate it, PMU mentioned it originally, you pooh-poohed his post by asserting baronies weren't geographically defined areas citing Lord Lucan and Mayo - as if that made any sense. I was only attempting to clarify for you that there is indeed a geographic boundary for the old barony of Castleknock (and that it had nothing to do with Lord Lucan and Mayo). Your current problem is that there is also a civil parish called "Castleknock", an electoral division called Castleknock, and a less rigidly defined area called "Castleknock" that An Post, DHL, etc deliver to without quibbling.

On Lord Lucan and Mayo - simply because he owned property there and was called Lord Lucan did not mean Castlebar House was or is included in the modern town of "Lucan", the general area of Lucan, the civil parish of Lucan , etc. Nor does it mean that Lucan can be considered part of Mayo.

You have yet to demonstrate that any of your claims have any validity. How is it illegal? How is it unfair? Where is the evidence to back up your claim that "tens of thousands" of people are out of pocket? You have also yet to demonstrate any value to you or to anyone else in imposing your preferred designation of "townland" on people's addresses when they are advertising properties in urban locations.
 
Johnjane, at this stage you have cited many newspaper articles, many successful lawsuits, and now laws. All of these should be in the public record, you want to provide links to back up your points?
 
Ah the burden of proof lies with me. I do accept. I'm glad to see you finally agree that your assertion that barony is outdated since 1898 to be precise since you are demanding precise information on this forum, so that you can sound like you know exactly what you're talking about and it's not at all obvious your begrudgery on the subject ;-) and that you finally feel superior to us in our affluent areas that deserve to lose a few bob. I'm assuming you'll continue to distract with more demands that have already been discussed multiple times so that can assert that this issue should no longer be discussed because you say so. I think someone mentioned the name tosser to describe people in my area at one stage, quite apt when looking at your comments so far. Now that you have agreed that you are in fact just stringing this thread along by knowing the facts but not willing to admit until there is no choice to, anything else you comment I assume is really just to waste time. And Leo as you must as moderator know, I as a new member cannot post links
 
Last edited:
Johnjane said:
Ah the burden of proof lies with me. I do accept. I'm glad to see you finally agree that your assertion that barony is outdated since 1898 to be precise since you are demanding precise information on this forum, so that you can sound like you know exactly what you're talking about and it's not at all obvious your begrudgery on the subject ;-)
Click to expand...
Baronies are not superseded. If you go to the Land Registry web site www.landregistryireland.com and look at the sample folio document you see it describes a property by both the barony and the electoral district within which it is situated. So baronies do exist and are relevant to a property if the barony is referenced in its deeds. Some years ago I lived in the Laurel Lodge estate and there was some dispute as to whether we were in Blanchardstown or Castleknock. I distinctly remember this issue of the barony being raised, i.e. the estate was and is within the barony of Castleknock, though within the townland of Blanchardstown.
 
I'm aware that this upsets people who don't live with this problem. But bear in mind that many of the people in affluent or semi affluent areas have worked extremely hard to get there and aspired to live in these areas because of reasons I've mentioned before. The boundary is clear and the general public do not recognise blanchardstown to be Castleknock. Many people are aware that houses add Castleknock on to their marketing to falsely inflate the price. This is generally understood. What is required is clarity. A clear understanding for prospective buyers, protecting honest sellers and a fair economy. Laurel lodge is within the townland boundaries of Castleknock. Its very clear. Barony is superceded.
 
Statutory instrument 47 of the local elections act 2014 defines Castleknock as being the

The electoral divisions of Blanchardstown-Abbotstown, 7


Blanchardstown-Coolmine, Blanchardstown-Delwood,

Blanchardstown-Roselawn, Castleknock-Knockmaroon,

Castleknock-Park, Lucan North.



Hence, as far as elections, Blanchardstown is in Castleknock. Likewise, as far at the Catholic Church is concerned, Blanchardstown is also in Castleknock parish

If there was to be a case for misleading advertising brought, I would say that there is a fair chance that any estate agent would have reasonable grounds for defence
 
I think the main issue here is not being discussed at all. The main issue is that certain parts of west Dublin are blending or fusing into each other. If you have two locations with similarly built houses, organised in similarly designed parks and estates and one of these areas doesnt appear to have too many additional advantages over the other, then clearly and over time there will be a convergence of house prices and attitude towards the overall area. Much to the annoyance and chagrin of many Castleknock residents, this is now happening in that area also and will continue to do so. It would be foolhardy to think that this has been caused by the "misrepresentation" of estate agents . This is complete nonsense. Canny buyers will inspect both sides of the "border" and unless they find something particularly special or particularly distasteful on either side of the border, then prices will converge over time. The cost of building a 140 sq metre home is the same on both sides (currently about 200,0000) If the finished house in Blanchardstown is costing 300,000 and the finished house in Castleknock is costing 500,000, then the Castleknock buyer is paying three times more for the site than his counterpart.
The mistake (or trap) that some people fall into is not realising that perceived or factual borders between desirable and less desirable areas are not guaranteed or fixed and are subject to change over time. The name Castleknock is just a label to describe an area of certain coordinates on a map which can expand or contract at any time at the whim of the local council . When you decide to pay an extra 200,000 for the name Castleknock, this is an intangible that takes place very often in one's head and has no basis in law. Right to a location name is certainly not protected by the law, even if you have paid 200,000 extra for it. I think the question that the OP should be asking himself is whether it was wise to pay Castleknock prices in the 1st place.
Dont forget that markets are sophisticated and prices are set by the market and by the interaction of supply and demand in a particular area.An estate agent doesnt set the price. At best he might be able to influence the perception towards a particular area but he is perfectly entitled to do that.Unfortunately, You have no exclusive right to the name "Castleknock" Its not yours, you didnt pay for it. Its just a label for the place where you live. Your thought process is not uncommon but it is flawed.
 
Johnjane said:
Ah the burden of proof lies with me. I do accept. I'm glad to see you finally agree that your assertion that barony is outdated since 1898 to be precise since you are demanding precise information on this forum, so that you can sound like you know exactly what you're talking about and it's not at all obvious your begrudgery on the subject ;-) and that you finally feel superior to us in our affluent areas that deserve to lose a few bob. I'm assuming you'll continue to distract with more demands that have already been discussed multiple times so that can assert that this issue should no longer be discussed because you say so. I think someone mentioned the name tosser to describe people in my area at one stage, quite apt when looking at your comments so far. Now that you have agreed that you are in fact just stringing this thread along by knowing the facts but not willing to admit until there is no choice to, anything else you comment I assume is really just to waste time. And Leo as you must as moderator know, I as a new member cannot post links
Click to expand...

I assume this diatribe is largely directed at me?

At no point have I name-called anyone, at every point I have treated you with a courtesy that you do not return. I neither begrudge you your property nor have any reason to. You assume a great deal about me on the basis of little or no evidence and a great deal of prejudice. You also appear to assume my point regarding the rise and fall of areas is directed by me and is vindictive on my part. It isn't - it is merely commentary extrapolated on the basis of a long historic pattern common to cities around the world.

I have not agreed with you at all. You premise is still fundamentally flawed and your basis for your putative law has no firmer foundation than any other mapping approach. You have yet to provide clear and unequivocal evidence that townlands are the best way to list a property for sale. The 1898 act you are referring to ...once again I am guessing since you have not provided the details... so I am going to hazard, the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898? Here is the link - since you are fixated on it - have a look for "townland" http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1898/act/37/enacted/en/print.html
And if you could, explain how the act validates your premise.

As I have already pointed out a few things have changed in the interim - thedaddyman has outlined the current position above.
 
No I would say Castleknock (the real one) is not merging. Maybe you mean carpenterstown with luttrellstown with blanchardstown with clonsilla. Coolmine with mulhuddart etc. I can see why you can make that assumption since many of those houses are similar and built similar years. Castleknock within the borders hasn't had much development like that. It is probably due to its proximity to the phoenix park with limits any extra space to develop. Any new developments are very different to houses in carpenterstown, luttrellstown. In the case with Castleknock anyway. Other areas around the country that may be the case but giving clarity about borders is a necessity for proper valuations. Electoral divisions are for voting and community projects, not for actual divisions of land. Imagine this; corduff is now adding carpenterstown to its address to inflate prices. While carpenterstown has its own antisocial problems it's not on the same scale as corduff. I'm not sure people in carpenterstown would appreciate it which technically is its own townland. My point is clear. Stop stealing addresses to falsely inflate prices. There are borders in place that I propose securing for valuation and protection of buyers. It seems like a natural thing to do with all the confusion going on.
 
Last edited:
Johnjane said:
Ah the burden of proof lies with me.
Click to expand...

You stated there are multiple sources to defend your position. When you then fail to do so, it weakens your argument, and you don't need to post links to reference cases or legislation.

Also, please use paragraphs to make your posts more readable.
 
Johnjane said:
Laurel lodge is within the townland boundaries of Castleknock.
Click to expand...
I lived in Laurel Lodge for a few years. I described the location as "Laurel Lodge, between Castleknock and Blanchardstown".
I now live in Terenure but kind of close to Harrolds Cross and maybe in Templeogue but nobody in the area gets hung up on that sort of nonsense. I still wonder why its such a big deal in areas of DNS (de North Side ;) ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top