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



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

Basic economics is supply and demand. Scarcity increases value. So how can estate agents and property developers be allowed to sell houses under the townland name of Castleknock when these houses are clearly not within the borders of the Castleknock townland? The borders are clearly defined on townland maps. Of all the houses for sale on daft in Castleknock right now; 137 of them, only 30 of those are actually in the townland of Castleknock. If there is a perception of a larger supply then the value is affected. This is costing Castleknock residence financially when they decide to sell. Its unacceptable and must be stopped legally.

People choose to live in Castleknock townland because it has a reputation for little or no antisocial behavior, high ranking schools and close proximity to the phoenix park. The residence are losing money because of this fraud instigated by developers and estate agents that want to increase value of their less valuable properties and misleading buyers in the process.

I propose a new section in the law to stop property developers and estate agents from listing properties with incorrect townlands. This law will also protect buyers from being duped into paying for property they believe to be in a certain townland.

With the economy boom or crash people will have transparency. They will not incur an extreme financial loss which this activity is causing for genuine sellers and buyers.

Its not just happening in West Dublin, it's happening all over the country and is costing genuine people massive financial losses.

There are laws in place for fraud and misrepresentation right now;

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001
10.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he or she dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another—

However it would be preferable to have a specific section for the buying and selling of property as it is in a different category to other sales, in that it is valued based on scarcity, location and the whole economy is affected. We need to send a very clear message that property must be listed and marketed correctly for a fair economy.


----------



## Setanta12 (12 Jan 2016)

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for [a Castleknock exclusivity], I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let [me call my bleedin' gaff whatever I want], that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will [intentionally mislabel 100s of letters to be sent to your home].


----------



## Setanta12 (12 Jan 2016)

(with thanks to William Neeson)


----------



## thedaddyman (12 Jan 2016)

I recall a campaign during the height of the boom by some people in Sandyford asking to have it renamed as I think North Foxrock.


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

Anyone who thinks Castleknock is not exclusive obviously suffers from inferior complex. Why do you suppose houses outside the Castleknock area add the name to their address when they are clearly located elsewhere with antisocial problems, less ideal location and not exactly high ranking schools..not that it matters where a person chooses to live mind. But it does matter if they are selling it and misrepresenting it. This is about money and nothing else. I think Mercedes-Benz would take issue if people were selling counterfeit mercs don't ya think. The only big difference is that mercs don't affect the entire economy the same way as property does.


----------



## Gerry Canning (12 Jan 2016)

Johnjane,

Quite often Townlands gobble up other Townlands eg a general area gets known as Castleknock even though the original Castleknock was smaller.

People buying/selling do not need more laws , just eyesight and a good solicitor etc !


----------



## 44brendan (12 Jan 2016)

Wasn't there nearly an uprising a number of years ago when a part of Firhouse was re-named New Tallaght!!
Why note take a complaint to the advertising standards board for false advertising?


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

Townlands are clearly defined. Easy to find online. Townlands don't gobble up other townlands simply because they are actually very defined. Also estate agents are in a position of authority and are wrecklessly misusing that position when listing properties as being in a more affluent townland when the property is not located there


----------



## so-crates (12 Jan 2016)

> What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet



In most cities and towns properties are not sold on the basis of townland per se, they are sold on the basis of a much less definitive area usually extrapolated from the address. There is not necessarily an intention to deceive, in many towns and cities the townland is simply irrelevant in an address. The nearest population nucleus or area identifier is the best indicator of location (well - before the advent of eircodes that is ). For example, properties in the townland of Askea in Carlow are generally just listed as Carlow properties.

I am sure that there have been several cases (see the examples above from other posters) of people attempting to harness the value of a name to get more value from their own property, I think you'll have a hard time proving it has ever dragged down the general value of properties in the specific townland (which seems to be your primary concern).


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

I believe it does drag down the value simply because a general search on daft may bring up five to six times more the amount of houses for sale (over supply) than are actually available to buy in the specific area search, giving the buyer much bigger choice..but a misleading choice. Buyers are misdirected under the impression they are getting a bargain until this price becomes normal to affect prices in the real townland area because sellers houses remaining unsold. I also hardly think that comparing rural areas to urban is the same. Its quite obvious in rural areas but urban areas are easier to deceive townland borders.


----------



## mf1 (12 Jan 2016)

Johnjane said:


> I believe it does drag down the value simply because a general search on daft may bring up five to six times more the amount of houses for sale (over supply) than are actually available to buy in the specific area search, giving the buyer much bigger choice..but a misleading choice. Buyers are misdirected under the impression they are getting a bargain until this price becomes normal to affect prices in the real townland area. I also hardly think that comparing rural areas to urban is the same. Its quite obvious in rural areas but urban areas are easier to deceive townland borders.



Are all these buyers you seek to protect lacking in the most basic  literacy, numeracy and computer skills that they can't view a photo/ map online and decide whether to do a drive by? 

Believe me, most purchasers have a defined area/price range in mind - they are not going to be fooled

I do not understand your concerns - they are not legitimate

mf


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

My concerns are legitimate and unfortunately it not a small issue. Its massive considering that's just one area I've brought up. There have been cases where developers have been sued successfully for assigning more affluent addresses to sell their less desirable located properties. A law in place to enforce transparency can only be a positive solution to this fraudulent activity. Surely nobody has a problem doing that unless they have their own issues related?


----------



## mathepac (12 Jan 2016)

There's nothing new about EA ads or documentation being inaccurate.  Their own disclaimers on their ads say as much. "This could be all lies but that's your problem", paraphrasing.

In any case, won't the new eircodes sort this out? If there's an improved uptake of licences. If their accuracy is improved (my house is incorrectly identified on the eircode/ An Post maps).  If EAs include eircodes as part of the addresses or are required to.

Perrystown / Terenure anyone?


----------



## so-crates (12 Jan 2016)

Johnjane said:


> I believe it does drag down the value simply because a general search on daft may bring up five to six times more the amount of houses for sale (over supply) than are actually available to buy in the specific area search, giving the buyer much bigger choice..but a misleading choice. Buyers are misdirected under the impression they are getting a bargain until this price becomes normal to affect prices in the real townland area because sellers houses remaining unsold. I also hardly think that comparing rural areas to urban is the same. Its quite obvious in rural areas but urban areas are easier to deceive townland borders.



Your belief does not constitute evidence. 

Am going to hazard a guess you are attempting to sell a property and it isn't moving at the price you want to sell it at. A search on property websites is showing you cheaper properties in the general area and you think that that is the reason that no-one is looking at your place, or not offering you the money you want. I hate to tell you this but that is not because the townland boundaries are not being "honoured". Anyone spending Castleknock and environs prices will be doing a great deal of homework and will definitely be looking to maximise their outcome. They will be acutely aware of what and where they are getting for their money and will be expecting to view not-quite-Castleknock properties in the hope of finding something more for a little bit less.

It is highly unlikely that they are *only* looking for something with the word "Castleknock" appended somewhere - however egregiously. They are far more likely looking for property within the vicinity of Castleknock or in North west Dublin, or near Blanchardstown hospital, that has x bedrooms, y bathrooms, etc., is close to schools/shops/transport (delete as appropriate). Your putative "protection" provides them with nothing. You aren't dealing with naivety, you are dealing with people who know the price they pay for your property is inflated because of an address - however nice your place is, you are pricing it far above its replacement value because it is "in Castleknock" - not everyone is so desirous of spending for that privilege and may be very happy to settle for a better house in a slightly less salubrious neighbourhood as long as it meets their actual, logical criteria. Your suggested law would not make them any more likely to spend an exorbitant amount of money. They will simply adjust their search to look in the townlands you disparage. 

Furthermore, the ingrained presumption seems to be that the current prosperity and desirability of Castleknock compared with some other areas in the vicinity is immutable. This is not necessarily the case. Areas go up and areas go down. It doesn't happen over months but it can happen over decades. Even incredibly expensive neighbourhoods can become less desirable with time and gentrification of other areas is not unusual at all. Granting it the "protection" of only ever  being known as "Castleknock" doesn't prevent changes in fortune.

As a final point - Askea is definitely urban not rural - hence the reason I picked it, it is a townland within the boundaries of a town, like so many others, but it happens to be one I know well. In an actual rural area (i.e. defined as not in a town or a city) a townland is useful information and would be a necessity for identifying the location of a property. In towns and cities - not so much.


----------



## mf1 (12 Jan 2016)

You are kidding, aren't you? 

This hardly ranks up there as an important economic issue with the likes of the flooding and homelessness crises? 

And what about

Are all these buyers you seek to protect lacking in the most basic literacy, numeracy and computer skills that they can't view a photo/ map online and decide whether to do a drive by? 


mf


----------



## Sunny (12 Jan 2016)

You are right, this is not a small issue. Maybe we could have it discussed at the UN the next time Jewish Settlements in Gaza comes up. I can't believe this hasn't led to civil war between the pure blood castleknockers and the muggles from outside. 

Maybe Castleknock should change it's name and get it trademarked?


----------



## DB74 (12 Jan 2016)

Maybe "proper" Castleknock addresses could be changed to say Dublin 14A instead of a common Northside "odd" code like D15


----------



## mathepac (12 Jan 2016)

Surely you mean Dublin 4N?


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

So majority of posters on here are against transparency. You've made your quite obvious point.I wonder does it have anything to do with the idea that encouraging this practice may increase the value of your own location? Makes sense if course that being against the idea of transparency means there must be some benefit to you. However there are very big issues which play a part with the economy, just because some people like yourself no doubt are not interested because it's of no benefit to encourage doesn't mean it should be legal to let it continue. I'm sure if any family could afford to live in an area with almost zero anti social behavior and high ranking schools they would prefer it. That drives the price up. That's economics. But it's fraud plain and simple to misrepresent a property in this way


----------



## cremeegg (12 Jan 2016)

I have to say I am surprised at the bile the OP has attracted.

He is looking at it from his own perspective as (presumably) a property owner in Castleknock. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. What have Gaza, flooding or homelessness got to do with it. Not every thread on AAM is about issues of national or even international concern, nor should it be.


----------



## Setanta12 (12 Jan 2016)

Actually this has been an issue since Greenland was discovered, and (mis)sold to the folks back home.


----------



## so-crates (12 Jan 2016)

Johnjane said:


> So majority of posters on here are against transparency. You've made your quite obvious point.I wonder does it have anything to do with the idea that encouraging this practice may increase the value of your own location? Makes sense if course that being against the idea of transparency means there must be some benefit to you. However there are very big issues which play a part with the economy, just because some people like yourself no doubt are not interested because it's of no benefit to encourage doesn't mean it should be legal to let it continue. I'm sure if any family could afford to live in an area with almost zero anti social behavior and high ranking schools they would prefer it. That drives the price up. That's economics. But it's fraud plain and simple to misrepresent a property in this way



Not in the least. But you aren't arguing for transparency. Not really. The information you wish to protect is publicly available already to anyone with an interest in it. False advertising is currently not allowed, but putting "Castleknock" into a search engine and getting back 130 properties within the general area does not constitute false advertising. Post regularly arrives at houses addressed "Castleknock" that aren't strictly within the townland boundary of that name.

I am guessing that fundamentally you think that tightly defining the area will level the playing field for a property you are selling since a search will then only return a fewer number of properties. It won't. You can still attend Castleknock college if you live outside of the townland of Castleknock. You can still socialise and shop there. You probably in truth won't ever be bothered by anti-social activity even outside of Castleknock and frankly, the "protection" of a townland boundary is non-existent. Anti-social behaviour doesn't suddenly cease at a townland boundary. Short of erecting a wall around the boundary, you can't keep them out. And anti-social behaviour is not necessarily the exclusive preserve of less salubrious areas.



cremeegg said:


> I have to say I am surprised at the bile the OP has attracted.
> 
> He is looking at it from his own perspective as (presumably) a property owner in Castleknock. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. What have Gaza, flooding or homelessness got to do with it. Not every thread on AAM is about issues of national or even international concern, nor should it be.



I think I have fairly addressed the point he has raised rather than deriding him for raising it. I agree - not all issues are of national or international importance but what the OP has proposed has no substantive grounding even within his own immediate circumstances. As I pointed out to him, the putative law does not mean people will be more likely to pay the price he is looking for his property.


----------



## Leo (12 Jan 2016)

Johnjane said:


> There have been cases where developers have been sued successfully for assigning more affluent addresses to sell their less desirable located properties.



If they are being successfully sued, is there something wrong with the current legislation they are being found transgressing?


----------



## DB74 (12 Jan 2016)

mathepac said:


> Surely you mean Dublin 4N?



No, that's Clontarf


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

I was referring to the public schooling in the area, although having the private Castleknock college in the location can only increase the areas interest thereby increasing the value. Its not a hindrance anyway but not included in what schools I was referring to. I was referring to non fee paying public schools. Not all buyers take action against developers when in fact they should and I encourage it. This issue is an economic issue and a very big case of fraud. Instead of having people sued a quick fix would be to add a section to the law clarifying that misrepresenting a property is illegal. Simply done and problem sorted.


----------



## PMU (12 Jan 2016)

Johnjane said:


> So how can estate agents and property developers be allowed to sell houses under the townland name of Castleknock when these houses are clearly not within the borders of the Castleknock townland?


  Because they are within the barony of Castleknock, which covers a much wider area than Castleknock townland or the civil parish of Castleknock.  I used to live in that area and it was always a bone of contention as to where Castleknock ended and Blanchardstown began.


----------



## cremeegg (12 Jan 2016)

Sunny said:


> You are right, this is not a small issue. Maybe we could have it discussed at the UN the next time Jewish Settlements in Gaza comes up. I can't believe this hasn't led to civil war between the pure blood castleknockers and the muggles from outside.
> 
> Maybe Castleknock should change it's name and get it trademarked?



There are no Jewish settlements in Gaza. Just saying


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

Barony is not townland. It refers to the Baron who owned specific land that came under the his control. Lord Lucan I believe owned as far away as mayo..but you couldn't call that area lucan. Townlands are what define areas.


----------



## so-crates (12 Jan 2016)

Johnjane said:


> I was referring to the public schooling in the area, although having the private Castleknock college in the location can only increase the areas interest thereby increasing the value. Its not a hindrance anyway but not included in what schools I was referring to. I was referring to non fee paying public schools. Not all buyers take action against developers when in fact they should and I encourage it. This issue is an economic issue and a very big case of fraud. Instead of having people sued a quick fix would be to add a section to the law clarifying that misrepresenting a property is illegal. Simply done and problem sorted.



I think we are not agreeing with you that is constitutes misrepresentation. We also do not see the value of the law you are proposing. Very few people can afford to buy a house, regardless of whether it is in Castleknock or Hartstown, without looking at where it actually is. You delude yourself into thinking that this means people will be willing to pay the premium for your property if they only knew it was true Castleknock. They won't be.

Fundamentally your problem is the price point for properties in your area limits your potential buying population to a small group, which has further been shrunk relatively recently by the Central Bank guidelines. The imposition of a 20% deposit means that if you have a property valued at 500k someone now needs a deposit of 100k - if they had saved the 50k it is a fair leap for the vast majority of people to suddenly find that extra 50k in short order, there will be people who have been set back because they simply have to save that increase in a deposit. Then there is the income required to support a mortgage of 400k. Simply put - the number of people looking right now to spend the sort of money you are looking for is small. It will remain so. Your "law" won't make people more inclined to pay more than they can afford - simply to ensure they are in Castleknock "proper".

One of the problems with a valuable house is the trouble with offloading it. The more pricey it is the fewer can afford it, this is a primary trigger for how areas start the long descent. The potential family buyer gets priced out, properties start to move to multi-unit living and rental, slowly but surely values erode. If you want to maintain a nice area you need to keep it affordable for "middle-class" buyers who want the whole house - not just the address.



Johnjane said:


> Barony is not townland. It refers to the Baron who owned specific land that came under the his control. Lord Lucan I believe owned as far away as mayo..but you couldn't call that area lucan. Townlands are what define areas.



Actually there are several definitions of area and barony is a valid one - welcome to Castleknock
Here's the barony
http://www.townlands.ie/dublin/castleknock2/

And here is the civil parish
http://www.townlands.ie/dublin/castleknock1/

And here is the townland
http://www.townlands.ie/dublin/castleknock/castleknock/castleknock/

They are all validly "Castleknock"


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

This is getting a bit silly. Barony is historical. Barony once straddled what are now multiple counties. News laws since supercede the barony. Townlands are what define the borders of one town area to another. Blanchardstown is not Castleknock. There is no argument to say so that could possibly be logical. Its laughable really trying to prove that. Its not a fact. Are you trying to also argue that the parish supercedes townlands? Ridiculous. Blanchardstown is now Castleknock...That's blatant misrepresentation. That's as good as you've got? You don't happen to live in carpenterstown do you?


----------



## mf1 (12 Jan 2016)

"This is getting a bit silly."

It certainly is, Stanley..................

mf


----------



## mathepac (12 Jan 2016)

"Might I propose 'sillier' Oliver?"


----------



## Sunny (12 Jan 2016)

Its funny. I went to private school in South Dublin even though I am from North Co. Dublin so don't even get a postcode!  Some of my best friends to this day are from the more affluent parts of South Dublin and yet the only tossers I ever heard talk about where they live like it mattered were people from Castleknock.


----------



## Sunny (12 Jan 2016)

By the way Castleknock is a lovely area but it's not Nirvana. Same thing happens with Malahide and swords. Firhouse and Tallaght. Cabinteely and Blackrock. Who cares. As MF1 says, people aren't stupid. They know where they buy. If they are stupid enough to fall for it then that's their problem.


----------



## so-crates (12 Jan 2016)

Johnjane said:


> This is getting a bit silly. Barony is historical. Barony once straddled what are now multiple counties. News laws since supercede the barony. Townlands are what define the borders of one town area to another. Blanchardstown is not Castleknock. There is no argument to say so that could possibly be logical. Its laughable really trying to prove that. Its not a fact. Are you trying to also argue that the parish supercedes townlands? Ridiculous. Blanchardstown is now Castleknock...That's as good as you've got? You don't happen to live in carpenterstown do you?



It isn't at all silly. It is entirely pertinent. You seem to think that "townland" has a special significance. It doesn't. It is as valid to refer to the old civil parish list or the old baronies as it is to refer to "townland". They represent an accretion of local government over centuries. Do you consider townlands a modern innovation? They aren't. And they don't define "one town area to another" townlands (shockingly) are used in rural areas too - where there never was a town. In fact they are more useful there. To this day (as I have already pointed out), they remain in common currency in rural Ireland as people's given address - despite the introduction of the eircode. Their purpose was entirely administrative, a pen pushers guide to Ireland. How to repackage the country for the Plantations and occupation by the English. You cannot have it every way. You cannot decide to base your putative law on the townland boundaries agreed in the first Ordinance Survey (or subsequently updated) and ignore the civil parishes, baronies, counties and ridings that also existed. Alternatively, if you want to start using modern district electoral divisions you need to start considering your address as being Castleknock-Knockmaroon Electoral Division....


----------



## so-crates (12 Jan 2016)

Oh and Blanchardstown is most certainly in both the barony and the civil parish of Castleknock - to be pedantic about it.


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

I never disputed the facts of the barony. I disputed its authority. Townland borders do supercede parish and barons when dividing land. That's just a plain fact. Electoral division are not divisions of land. To say any of these statements you've made are true is in fact false. The reason people in Castleknock care is because other areas near it are misrepresenting their location thereby falsely increasing the value of properties, which reduces the 'scarcity' of available property for sale in Castleknock, thereby reducing its value. Scarcity increases value. Its about money.


----------



## so-crates (12 Jan 2016)

Actually you did dispute it - you imbue townland with a special validity or "authority" because it aligns best to what you view as the desirable area. Electoral districts are very definitely divisions of land and are mapped. What, pray tell, makes you think they aren't? Oh and Civil parishes actually still exist legally though they are rarely used. Townlands are simply smaller areas.

The trouble is you favour using "townland" only because it suits you.


----------



## so-crates (12 Jan 2016)

Here is the map from 2013
http://www.boundarycommittee.ie/reports/Ireland-Map.pdf


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

Nobody is disputing postcodes, so your link is invalid to this thread.


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

It seems clear the only reason there is any kind of dispute to the fraud trying to prove that Hartstown/blanchardstown/etc are located in Castleknock is to prove some guy/gal who thinks they're better than the rest (me in your opinion) needs to be proven wrong by any means. I'm looking for transparency and fairness, nothing else. Townland maps define the town land area. If you can prove that all these other arguments supercedes what boundaries are in place by the townland maps and that townland maps are wrong then please do. Electoral divisions are in fact just that. For electoral and political purposes, nothing else. Its fraud to sell something that is misrepresented. Blanchardstown is not Castleknock. That's a very simple but true fact. Ask any buyer in the know, and if not in the know I'm sure they would want to know the difference, just as much as comparing blanchardstown to tallaght. Arguing otherwise is like saying blanchardstown is tallaght. Its just not so. What's the point of townland maps if they don't matter and we just merge all the areas into one. That's not what buyers want and it's certainly not what honest sellers want.


----------



## so-crates (12 Jan 2016)

<sigh> It wasn't a link to postcodes (which are not used in Ireland). And I never suggested you were disputing postcodes. I was merely pointing out that contrary you your statement ....


Johnjane said:


> Electoral division are not divisions of land


... that they are mapped, therefore they are divisions of land. That they can be and are changed by a boundary commission in response to population fluctuations is not exactly relevant. Any line on a map can be changed. Townlands are not immutable either - they actually have changed over the years. That they are not subject to change due to population fluctuation of course makes them better markers than Electoral divisions for you to stake your particular claim on a plot but it does not make them better markers for definitions of "Castleknock". 

You don't want to back down on your pet notion because you are clearly fulminating over some perceived slight or other. Evidence to the contrary cannot sway the committed believer. There is no room for common sense or logic. That your argument is spurious and based on a particular historical geographical division you chose that conveniently (just happens) to align to what you want to be "Castleknock" is clearly not convincing you. 

Just cos you want it to be true don't make it so. "Castleknock" Co. Dublin has several different and clearly mapped definitions, they all overlap and they are all equally valid as area identifiers. At the end of the day they all just define areas on a map. The estate agents aren't lying, what they are saying does not devalue your property (frankly in my opinion it would be a good thing if it did - overpriced housing does not improve an area) and buyers are not spending money elsewhere instead of buying your property at a premium simply because they thought they were getting the same "Castleknock" as you. They are spending their money elsewhere because they get a better deal for them.


----------



## so-crates (12 Jan 2016)

Johnjane said:


> It seems clear the only reason there is any kind of dispute to the fraud trying to prove that Hartstown/blanchardstown/etc are located in Castleknock is to prove some guy/gal who thinks they're better than the rest (me in your opinion) needs to be proven wrong by any means. I'm looking for transparency and fairness, nothing else. Townland maps define the town land area. If you can prove that all these other arguments supercedes what boundaries are in place by the townland maps and that townland maps are wrong then please do. Electoral divisions are in fact just that. For electoral and political purposes, nothing else. Its fraud to sell something that is misrepresented. Blanchardstown is not Castleknock. That's a very simple but true fact. Ask any buyer in the know, and if not in the know I'm sure they would want to know the difference, just as much as comparing blanchardstown to tallaght. Arguing otherwise is like saying blanchardstown is tallaght. Its just not so. What's the point of townland maps if they don't matter and we just merge all the areas into one. That's not what buyers want and it's certainly not what honest sellers want.



It isn't fraud. It isn't misrepresentation. "Castleknock" does not refer exclusively to the historic OS map division for the townland of Castleknock.


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

'Historic townland division'...what are you actually referring to because it's easy to look up the townland map of Castleknock. And it's very specific.


----------



## Sophrosyne (12 Jan 2016)

Johnjane said:


> other areas near it are misrepresenting their location thereby falsely increasing the value of properties



Surely this would be true only if either the properties or the area in which they are located were not broadly comparable to Castleknock.


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

People are in fact buying in areas because they believe them to be another area, hence why developers have been sued for naming properties addresses incorrectly after the buyer has purchased. And this has happened in the vicinity of affluent areas, which you believe deserve to have their properties pushed even lower. Doesn't matter to you because you think it needs to change. That's socialist talk. Unfortunately for you we don't live in a socialist regime. You're living in the wrong country. If you want to spend your money on a merc then you really don't want to find out later it's counterfeit. And you are well within your rights to pursue the purchase of a valid merc if you want to. We live in a country that encourages people to better their lives and that sometimes means they want to live in an affluent area with little or no antisocial behavior, high ranking schools and close proximity to nice parks. Begrudging people is your right but label the property correctly. That's all any buyer and honest seller wants


----------



## Setanta12 (12 Jan 2016)

Johnjane said:


> People are in fact buying in areas because they believe them to be another area, hence why developers have been sued for naming properties addresses incorrectly after the buyer has purchased.



Like New Amsterdam, New York?  Now any fool that bought there thinking they were but a short-commute from Rotterdam, or London deserves everything they get, IMHO.

Research before you buy.


----------



## so-crates (12 Jan 2016)

<sigh> 

As I have already demonstrated, there is nothing special about a townland, it is easy to look up the historic civil parish definition too. 

My point is the word "Castleknock" is not, nor has ever been, exclusively used for the townland of Castleknock in the former county Dublin. That it applies to several different map divisions provides a plethora of overlapping areas and different definitions of what "castleknock" is. You've picked one to suit your purposes and seem almost apoplectic that anyone could possibly have a different, equally valid interpretation. Your premise is invalid to start with and all conclusions you draw on the basis of your premise are therefore equally invalid.

Regarding the property prices, the type of people you need in an area like Castleknock to maintain the comfortable status quo are being or have already largely been priced out of it. You are selling to a limited market. The population mix will very likely have to shift to a higher density model at some point, it probably already has started. In a functional market, as property prices peak they tend to attract developers who want to put more properties on large sites, why sell 1 big house for 500k when you can sell at least 5 smaller on the same site for €350k apiece? As for your markers of the desirability of Castleknock - they aren't so difficult to find elsewhere. High ranking public schools, low anti-social behaviour and close proximity to nice parks are a blessing shared by many people in considerably cheaper parts of the country. You don't need to pay 500k+ to get that - it is only a Dublin-focus that leads you to that fallacy. 

You'd be one of a very select group of one that would consider me socialist, I have no intention of forcing down the price of your property and I have no desire to either. I am merely extrapolating from documented urban history of all major cities, including Dublin. Former desirable areas go out of fashion for several different reasons but being over-priced is an important factor; cheaper, newer areas opening up in competition is also an important factor. It has nothing to do with begrudgery - it is quite easy to prove. If you want to see how it happens visit the new museum of Dublin tenements when it opens. That is to be housed in a former tenement which started out life as a grand town house in an exclusive area and slowly but surely degenerated. Dublin was notorious for the worst slums at one point - almost all of them were conversions. Same processes can be found at play in London, New York, etc. and are at play in Dublin of today.

As for your spurious car analogy. The difference between buying/selling a car and a house is that the same car will cost you in or about the same price all over the country - the same house won't. They aren't comparable. Your "fake merc" equivalence to "Castleknock-but-not-Castleknock-townland" is ludicrous.


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

I guess you're all fired up over this. Counterfeit merc was an analogy for the fake Castleknock houses. Selling something that it's not. I didn't realise I would have to explain that! Geography just happens to matter in the case of legitimate property


----------



## so-crates (12 Jan 2016)

Hmm, I'm fired up? I am not the one with a vested interest in an area. Nor am I the one accusing people of acting fraudulently. I am not accusing people of begrudgery either on very tenuous grounds. I am not the one avoiding the simple truth that my "logic" is based on the flawed premise that "Castleknock" means the townland of Castleknock only.

Townlands are not a suitable or useful area identifier for people purchasing a house unless they are out the country - in which case they need the townland to even be able to find the property - though the eircode should now provide a more secure means of identifying such properties. Your contention that property should only be advertised on the basis of a specific land division (of which there are in excess of 60,000 in the country) that isn't in common, everyday usage within towns and cities is patently ludicrous. It isn't false advertising simply because "Castleknock" does not exclusively refer to what you think it does. You want it to mean one thing - but common usage does not align to your particular, idiosyncratic view. That it means the general area includes cheaper properties is by no means a negative.

Your analogy is still spurious - the houses in other townlands within the Castleknock area are not "fake". They are in a different more inclusive definition of Castleknock that you simply refuse to acknowledge. Methinks you are tilting at windmills.


----------



## Johnjane (12 Jan 2016)

Townland maps say otherwise. Are you stating that their boundaries are not legitimate boundaries? You're the one trying to force your point of view bringing ridiculous arguments like the tenaments which has no bearing on this thread in present day Dublin! Also interestingly I've noticed members on this very site referring to the 'real Castleknock' when discussing property.


----------



## JohnJay (13 Jan 2016)

a few months ago there was a property that appeared twice on daft, by the same agent, one advert said it was in Glasnevin, one said it was Finglas. 

I guess that agent was appealing to all demographics!


----------



## so-crates (13 Jan 2016)

They don't say otherwise, they simply map out a specific pattern of area divisions around the country. One of the townland divisions in north county Dublin happens to be called "Castleknock". The same name is used for marking out other, larger areas. The townland map you cling to is no better an identifier of area than any other map division I have pointed out. It is one definition of Castleknock among several acknowledged definitions of similar antiquity and "legality". I am not querying the legitimacy of the boundary of the townland as drawn on your map - I am simply querying your (ludicrous) contention that it is the only true definition of "Castleknock". It isn't.

My point about the tenements was pertinent. You accused me of begrudgery and socialist tendencies and a desire to devalue your property - I was merely backing up my assertion that areas do not retain the same cachet over time by using an example. Something you have consistently failed to do I might point out.


----------



## Johnjane (13 Jan 2016)

Apparently I'm not the only one that believes that is the boundary since many articles from newspaper state the fact it is a separate area to blanchardstown. Its very relevant to the price of properties that they are marketed in the correct area. Your maps stating barons used to be relevant undeniably however you can look up when these were superceded by new laws. You simply don't want affluence it seems. You stated you would like for property in that area to reduce further. Your words not mine which of course led me to believe you begrudge the exclusivity of the area. Also there seems to be a serious issue with antisocial behavior in these areas calling themselves Castleknock. You know the ones that are outside my map.


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Jan 2016)

If I understand your original post correctly, you are claiming that on Daft.ie only 30 out of 137 properties listed as Castleknock are within the townland of Castleknock and that:


The remaining 107 properties are located in “inferior” areas, which do not have access to the same amenities as and suffer a higher degree of anti-social behaviour than properties located in the townland of Castlenock. Can you name the areas in which these properties are located?


Buyers are prepared to pay a premium for a property located specifically within the townland of Castleknock, irrespective of the fact that better properties may be available within the wider interpretation of Castleknock.


The availability of properties within the wider definition of Castleknock is unfairly depressing the value of properties within the townland of Castleknock.
What factual evidence, statistical or otherwise, can you present to advance your views on 1, 2, and 3 above?

At the end of the day, effecting legislative change is about what you can prove; not about what you feel.


----------



## Johnjane (13 Jan 2016)

It's very clear to see in fact. Comparing prices among houses within the boundary and outside the boundary. The fact that similar house types are priced the same even though one is actually in a better location than the other which is claiming to be within the boundary. Anyone can search and see quite clearly for themselves.


----------



## Sophrosyne (13 Jan 2016)

I am not either agreeing or disagreeing with you. I am drawing your attention to the fact that to elicit legislative change, the burden of proof lies with you.

_You_ would need to present _substantive_ proof of _all _of what you are saying. Simply pointing people to a search engine to draw their own conclusions does not come in anyway, shape or form close to substantive proof.


----------



## Johnjane (13 Jan 2016)

In fairness I don't think requesting clarity and transparency will need much back up other than showing where the land lies, some examples of pricing comparisons every region/area in the country and there will be many to see and showing that it's not just one area of country affected but the entire economy is heavily dependant on house values and it's link with location and as a consequence mortgages. Not sure I'm the person with ability to research figures like that but I'm sure there is someone who can, maybe a political rep can help. I'm just proposing the idea on a forum that discusses the economy and money which is the reason I posted here.


----------



## so-crates (13 Jan 2016)

You aren't willing to acknowledge any viewpoint but your own, you cannot admit that other definitions of "Castleknock" exist and have equal validity, history and application. Your own argument is put forward on specious grounds and you provide no evidence or even example in support of your contention.

Good luck bringing this one to a political representative - see can you get it listed as an economic issue for the upcoming election. I'm sure they'll all be delighted to be doorstepped for this "economic" issue.


----------



## Johnjane (13 Jan 2016)

You're not willing to accept or acknowledge the most up to date laws. Simple.


----------



## so-crates (13 Jan 2016)

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.


----------



## T McGibney (13 Jan 2016)

Has the Letting Off Steam forum, and the controls upon its usage, been scrapped or something?


----------



## so-crates (13 Jan 2016)

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


----------



## RichInSpirit (13 Jan 2016)

JohnJane is making a very valid point. It's like calling all sprouts 'brussel sprouts' even though they're not all from Brussels.


----------



## Purple (13 Jan 2016)

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.


----------



## Johnjane (13 Jan 2016)

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.


----------



## Setanta12 (13 Jan 2016)

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.


----------



## Johnjane (13 Jan 2016)

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.


----------



## so-crates (13 Jan 2016)

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.



<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.


----------



## Leo (13 Jan 2016)

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?


----------



## Johnjane (13 Jan 2016)

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


----------



## PMU (13 Jan 2016)

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 ;-)


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.


----------



## Johnjane (13 Jan 2016)

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.


----------



## thedaddyman (13 Jan 2016)

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


----------



## Dr.Debt (13 Jan 2016)

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.


----------



## so-crates (13 Jan 2016)

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



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.


----------



## Johnjane (13 Jan 2016)

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.


----------



## Leo (13 Jan 2016)

Johnjane said:


> Ah the burden of proof lies with me.



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.


----------



## Purple (13 Jan 2016)

Johnjane said:


> Laurel lodge is within the townland boundaries of Castleknock.


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  ).


----------



## so-crates (13 Jan 2016)

Purple said:


> "Laurel Lodge, between Castleknock and Blanchardstown".



Tut tut Purple! How very radical of you. But at least you weren't trying to steal value from Castleknock there


----------



## geri (14 Jan 2016)

Didn't a certain skinheadded, brothel owning drug dealer live in Castleknock.  Nice neighbours!


----------



## mathepac (14 Jan 2016)

The Blanch, I thought.  He was also Fat, allegedly.


----------



## Leper (18 Jan 2016)

Nice thread.  Have a look at Lisney site. Brilliant the way they describe properties e.g. period toilet = outside john. 

The OP is probably not aware that the likes of estate agents will do anything for commission; not much different from banking etc. If you're selling you want 'em to do it - if you're buying it becomes a concern.


----------



## Purple (18 Jan 2016)

mathepac said:


> The Blanch, I thought.  He was also Fat, allegedly.


Blanchardstown, Castleknock...what's the difference?


----------



## Firefly (18 Jan 2016)

Purple said:


> Blanchardstown, Castleknock...what's the difference?



100k ?


----------



## Purple (18 Jan 2016)

Firefly said:


> 100k ?


That depends on if you are in the part of Castleknock that is near the village or near Blanchardstown village


----------

