Hugoz Suites @ KL City Centre, Jalan Yap Kwan Seng — one licensee, two statutory filings, and a completion date a year apart

Six things on this page that no portal listing will tell you

Each of these came out of reading the developer’s own two statutory disclosures against each other and against four portals. None of it is a judgement about the building. All of it is a difference between documents.

The three filed layouts — and the words the developer actually uses

The filing publishes exactly three type codes, and the developer’s own hugoz.com.my/floor-plan matches the filing on every built-up. The square-metre figures are the developer’s own print, not my conversion. The filing publishes no unit count per type, so how the 320 units split across A, B and C is NOT PRINTED, and no car park entitlement per type is published by anyone.

Built-ups above are the filed figures, cross-confirmed against the developer’s own floor-plan and layout-plan pages. Not published by anyone: the unit mix across the three types, ceiling heights, floor-to-floor heights, floor finishes, fittings specification, air-conditioning provision, furnishing level (bare / partly / fully furnished), balcony provision, stack facing, share units, and the car park entitlement per type. Nothing in that list is estimated here.

Gallery — the developer’s own images, every subject inferred

Fine print on every image on this page, including the three in the header. Neither hugoz.com.my nor exsim.com.my exposes a media API — hugoz.com.my is not a WordPress site at all, and the corporate site’s REST media endpoints return 404. No CMS title could be retrieved for any image, so every subject on this page is inferred and none is confirmed. The inference rests on the developer’s own file name plus the caption it publishes beside each image, which is better than a file name alone but is still not a verified title. Mime type and pixel dimensions could not be verified either. Each URL was individually checked for reachability before use. These are the developer’s artist’s impressions, not photographs of a finished building, and nothing here is a stock photograph or an image borrowed from another project. No construction-progress photograph is published with a date or a percentage by anyone, so none appears here.

Location — and why “900 m to the LRT” is not the nearest-station figure

Not one distance on this page is mine. The developer publishes no distance to anything at all: hugoz.com.my/location-map is a map graphic with no list of places and no single figure on it. Every number below is attributed to the portal that published it, and where two surfaces of the same portal disagree, both are shown.

The register — both of this licensee’s statutory disclosures, side by side

Two statutory disclosures exist for this scheme and they do not match. The first is the filed advertisement particulars (BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN) served by KPKT HIMS. The second is the statutory block the developer prints at the foot of its own project site, hugoz.com.my — also a disclosure the developer is responsible for. Each cell below gives the HIMS value, then the value on the developer’s own site, and flags whether they agree. Four fields disagree outright and one appears on only one of the two.

Read that row as two statutory disclosures by one licensee, not as one filing and some marketing. A filed advertisement-particulars block and the statutory block a developer prints on its own sales site are both documents the developer is answerable for, which is exactly why a one-year gap on the completion date and two different renderings of the licence number matter. The HIMS folder path was resolved directly from the APDL serial — APDL 30370-1/09-2026/1040(A)-(S) maps to files/30370/30370-1/. Two further paths were checked and both return 404: IKLAN_BROSUR_02.pdf in the same folder, and files/30370/30370-2/, a possible second phase. Only one filed phase exists under licence 30370, and there is no filed evidence of any office-suite component.

The RM915,515.00 minimum to RM1,345,960.00 maximum above is the filed statutory unit selling price range from the advertisement particulars, printed identically in both disclosures. It is a legally filed figure and a matter of public record. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, it is not a current price, and it is not the price of any particular unit, stack or floor. Prices and availability change; only the developer’s own stamped sale and purchase agreement states what you would actually pay.

Field by field: every place the developer’s two statutory disclosures disagree

One — the completion date. KPKT HIMS: SEPT 2026. The developer’s own statutory block: SEPT 2027. A one-year gap between two disclosures by the same licensee. Property Genie repeats September 2027; PropertyGuru and mymalaysiaprop publish 2028, which no statutory document supports. Given the permit ran 15/09/2023–14/09/2026, SEPT 2026 reads like the date as filed at permit issue and SEPT 2027 like a later revision — but that is inference, and no document reconciles them. Two — the developer licence number. HIMS prints 30370/02-2028/0047(N); the developer’s site prints 30370/02/2028/0047(A). Two differences: the separator after 02, and the suffix letter, (N) against (A). The suffix is not decoration — it distinguishes licence classes. The validity dates match, so this is one licence rendered two ways by one developer. Do not let anyone quote you this number without saying which document it came from. Three — the filed building type. HIMS: Pangsapuri Suites. The developer’s site: PANGSAPURI SERVIS (Service Apartments). These are not the same string, and “Pangsapuri Suites” is not a standard KPKT building-type term while “Pangsapuri Servis” is. Four — the developer’s own address. HIMS puts the licensee at Level 35, EXSIM Tower, Millerz Square, Old Klang Road; the developer’s terms page puts it at Jalil Link, Bukit Jalil. Five — the permit itself. The APDL number and its validity period appear on the developer’s own block and are not printed on the HIMS PDF at all, so the government copy of the filing does not let you check the permit independently.

The advertising and sale permit expired on 14 September 2026 — stated plainly

Today is 5 October 2026. The only advertising and sale permit published for this scheme, 30370-1/09-2026/1040(A)-(S), ran from 15 September 2023 to 14 September 2026. That is 21 days before this page was written, and the permit has lapsed. HIMS was re-checked and no renewed permit was found. This page therefore does not present the permit as current, and nobody should. What that means in practice: an advertising and sale permit (APDL) is the legal authority for a licensed developer to advertise and to sell units in a housing development. A permit that has expired without a visible renewal is not evidence of wrongdoing — renewals are routine and the registry is not always current — but it is something you are entitled to resolve before money changes hands. What to do: at the gallery, ask to see the current permit certificate on display, check the number and the expiry date on it with your own eyes, and photograph it. Ask for the developer licence certificate the same way and check that its validity covers the date you will sign. If the gallery cannot produce a current permit, that answer is itself information, and it is a reasonable moment to pause rather than to pay a booking fee. The developer licence, separately, runs to 13 February 2028 on both disclosures — a current licence and a current permit are two different documents and you want to see both.

320 units filed against 674 marketed — and why which one you are buying decides your legal protection

Both statutory disclosures say 320 units. Property Genie publishes 674, broken down as “354 office suites + 320 serviced suites”, and PropertyGuru, mymalaysiaprop and an agent site all repeat 674. Notice that the 320 figure appears on both sides of that arithmetic, which suggests the housing filing covers only the serviced component and that 354 office suites sit outside it. But no second filing exists to confirm that. IKLAN_BROSUR_02.pdf returns 404 and the second-phase folder files/30370/30370-2/ returns 404, so there is no filed evidence of a 354-unit office component at all — while the filing’s own Type C is a “Studio Office”, i.e. office product sitting inside the 320. The reconciliation is unresolved, and this page states 320 as the filed figure and 674 as a portal figure the filing does not support. Why it matters more than a number. Units sold under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act come with a statutory package: a prescribed sale and purchase agreement — Schedule H for strata housing accommodation — a statutory defect liability period, statutory liquidated and ascertained damages if vacant possession is late, and payments made into a developer’s HDA housing development account that cannot be drawn freely. Units that are not housing accommodation get none of that. A commercial or office unit is sold on the developer’s own contract, with whatever defect period and whatever late-delivery remedy that contract chooses to give you, and your money is not ring-fenced in a statutory account. So the single most important question to put in writing is: is the unit you are being offered one of the 320 filed units, and does its sale and purchase agreement follow a prescribed HDA schedule? Note that this filing, unlike the sibling filings for Hanaz, Kyliez and Veladaz, prints no schedule at all — so even for the filed 320 the governing schedule is not disclosed, and you must ask.

Foreign buyers — the Kuala Lumpur threshold is RM1,000,000, and the filed minimum here is below it

This site is in Kuala Lumpur / the Federal Territory, where the minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM1,000,000, with Economic Planning Unit (EPU) consent required for the acquisition. Now read that against the filed statutory range for this scheme: the filed minimum is RM915,515 and the filed maximum is RM1,345,960. The filed minimum sits roughly RM84,485 below the threshold. The practical consequence is specific and it is not a technicality: the cheapest filed units in this development may not be open to a foreign buyer at all, while the dearer ones are. Eligibility here is decided unit by unit, by the price of the actual unit on the actual sale and purchase agreement — not by the project, not by the brochure, and not by the range. If you are a foreign buyer: before you pay a booking fee, pay a deposit or sign anything, get written confirmation of eligibility for the specific unit number you intend to buy, from the developer and from the relevant authority, together with the consent route that will be used. A unit that clears the threshold on paper can still fail it after any adjustment to the purchase price, so have it confirmed against the final contract price. Thresholds and state policy change, and the policy prevailing at the time of your purchase governs, so a figure quoted to you last year is not an answer. Louis can put that request in writing to the developer for you, and if the answer is no for the unit you wanted, you should know that before any money moves, not after.

Commercial or residential title — asserted by portals, printed by no primary source

Four non-primary sources call this project residential: PropertyGuru (“Title Classification: Residential”), mymalaysiaprop, Property Genie (“Residential (Service Residence/Office Suites)”) and an agent site. No primary source says anything at all — neither statutory disclosure prints a land-use or title category. Treat “residential title” as unverified, and note two facts in the primary record that pull the other way. First, the filed building type is a pangsapuri servis / “Pangsapuri Suites”, and in Kuala Lumpur serviced apartments of this class are commonly built on commercial-category land notwithstanding a residential-looking product. Second, the filing’s own Type C is a “Studio Office” with a pantry, an office and a washroom, approved under a DBKL BP T3 OSC building plan — an office unit type inside the scheme is a strong indicator that the land use is not purely residential. What the title category actually governs, and is therefore unresolved here: the electricity and water tariff band (commercial tariffs are charged at non-domestic rates, which is a permanent difference in your monthly cost), the DBKL assessment rate (cukai taksiran), loan margin and tenure treatment, real property gains tax treatment, and whether the sale is made under a prescribed HDA schedule with its statutory defect liability period. Ask for the title category and the land use in writing, and have your solicitor check it on the title search.

Exactly what to ask for at the sales gallery, and what each answer is worth

Take this list with you. One: the current advertising and sale permit — number and expiry, photographed. The published one expired 14 September 2026. Two: the developer licence certificate, and check that (N) or (A) appears on it, because the developer’s two disclosures print it both ways. Three: the filed advertisement particulars page the law requires to be displayed — photograph it and compare the completion date on it against SEPT 2026 and SEPT 2027. Four: a written answer on which completion date is in the sale and purchase agreement, and what the contracted vacant possession date is. Five: which HDA schedule the SPA follows — G, H, I or J — since the filing prints none. Six: whether your unit is one of the 320 filed units or part of the 354 office suites nobody has filed for. Seven: the lot or PT number, the mukim and the daerah, so the title can be searched at all. Eight: the land and title category, residential or commercial, and the utility tariff band that follows from it. Nine: the storey count, the car park levels and your car park entitlement in writing — none of the three is published anywhere. Ten: the unit mix across Types A, B and C, and whether any dual-key layout exists on a stamped plan. Eleven: whether the kitchen in Types A and B is wet or dry, since the developer only ever writes “kitchen”. Twelve: the maintenance charge and sinking fund per square foot, officially. Thirteen: who the appointed building manager will be, since no operator or management company is named by anyone. Fourteen: whether short-term letting is permitted by the management and under DBKL rules. Fifteen: the GreenRE certificate — ask whether it is provisional or final, and for the certificate number.

What this page does not publish, and why

As a matter of standing policy this page carries no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotional package, no freebie, no incentive, no commission, no Bumiputera discount percentage, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental-return rate and no yield or ROI projection. Two specific consequences for this project. First: the filed particulars do print a Bumiputera discount field. Its existence is recorded here; its value is withheld and will not appear on this page. Second: a marketing “from RM___” asking figure published on one portal sits below the filed statutory minimum of RM915,515. The figure itself is therefore not reproduced here in any form, nor is anything derived from it. What is recorded is the discrepancy and its weight: it is carried by one independent source, which presents it twice on the same page — once as a headline figure and once as a derived per-square-foot figure. That is one source in two shapes, not two sources. Property Genie publishes no price; mymalaysiaprop publishes no price. Where this page needs a price it uses the filed statutory minimum and maximum, labelled as the filed statutory range. Also not reproduced: an agent site’s claims that this is “KLCC’s most profitable short-term rental investment” and the “top KLCC short-term rental property” — profitability superlatives with no primary support whatsoever, which are not reproduced in any form and not softened into a milder version either. The developer publishes no rental guarantee, no leaseback and no rental pool for this project; EXSIM’s Corporate Leasing page describes a corporate leasing division that introduces buyers to third-party agencies at no cost, which is an introduction service, not a leaseback and not a guarantee, and that page does not name Hugoz Suites at all.

Not published by anyone — the full list, because a buyer deserves the gaps as well as the facts

Statutory and legal: the HDA schedule (G/H/I/J) and therefore the statutory defect liability period; the lot or PT number, the mukim and the daerah, which means the land title cannot be independently searched; the land area; the land and title category, residential or commercial, and with it the utility tariff band, the DBKL assessment basis and the loan-margin and real property gains tax treatment; the site’s street address, which neither disclosure prints; whether any renewed advertising and sale permit exists; and whether the 354 marketed “office suites” are a separate development with their own licence and permit — no such filing was found. Physical and product: the number of storeys (only PropertyGuru and mymalaysiaprop say 46, unconfirmed); the number of blocks; car park levels, total bays and bays per unit; the unit mix across Types A, B and C; the number and type of lifts officially (only mymalaysiaprop’s “4 passenger + 1 bomba”); ceiling and floor-to-floor heights; floor finishes, fittings specification and air-conditioning provision; whether units are sold bare, partly or fully furnished; whether the kitchens in Types A and B are wet or dry — the developer writes only “kitchen”, and “pantry” for Type C; what occupies levels 1–7, 9–40 and 42; and whether Level 43A is a renumbered 44. Money and management: the maintenance charge and sinking fund officially (only mymalaysiaprop’s single-source “RM0.88 per sq ft including sinking fund”, which is not an official figure); share units; any appointed hotel operator, serviced-residence brand or management company — none is named by anyone; and whether short-term letting is permitted by the management or under the DBKL short-term accommodation framework, which an agent site markets and no primary source confirms. Delivery and people: the contracted vacant possession date reconciled against the three published completion dates; construction progress as a dated percentage — the developer has a site-progress page but publishes no figure; and the architect, main contractor, interior designer and landscape architect, none of whom is named anywhere. Certification: any final, as-built GreenRE certificate or certificate number — only a provisional Gold announcement exists — and GBI certification of any grade, of which there is none at any status. Registry pricing: no public government transaction band exists for this scheme, which is expected for an unbuilt project. Every one of those is a question Louis will put to the developer in writing on your behalf; none of them is estimated on this page.

Density — why this page gives you no figure, and will not

Density wants units divided by acres. For this project the arithmetic cannot be done from any primary source, so any density figure on any page about it is fabricated. The filed unit count is 320. The filed land area is NOT PRINTED, and so are the lot number, the PT number and the mukim, in both disclosures. The only published land area anywhere is 0.87 acres from PropertyGuru alone, printed on the same page as 674 units — a unit count the filing contradicts. Combining a portal’s acreage with a portal’s unit count, or a portal’s acreage with the filed unit count, produces two wildly different answers from a numerator and a denominator that come from conflicting sources, and neither is published here. Per-floor arithmetic fails the same way: no storey count is filed, and the one portal figure that exists (46) cannot be reconciled with another portal’s claim of “approximately 20 units per floor”. So this page says density cannot be computed for Hugoz Suites, and it does not offer you a number in place of that sentence. Note for comparison that the sibling filings do print storey counts — Hanaz 98 units over 45 storeys, Kyliez 126 over 37 — which is exactly why the same card can be built for them and not for this one.

Questions buyers actually ask about Hugoz Suites

Other KL projects by the same group, read the same way

Published: 5 October 2026 · Last verified: 5 October 2026. Statutory particulars read from the KPKT HIMS filed advertisement particulars for licence 30370-1 and cross-read against the statutory block published on hugoz.com.my; where the two disagree, both are printed. The advertising and sale permit published for this scheme expired on 14 September 2026 and no renewal was found. Marketing information, not an offer. Verify every figure against the developer’s own stamped documents before you commit.