Erica Residence, Bandar Bukit Puchong — Daerah SEPANG, SELANGOR (not Petaling, not MBSJ): 68 three-storey semi-detached homes on Jadual G, KPKT project 6533-19, vacant possession contractually due 15 October 2026 with NO approved extension and a 97.50% banded progress figure — and the GreenRE PLATINUM provisional rating is real while the “first landed homes in Malaysia” claim is not verifiable

Seven things about Erica Residence that no brochure and no portal tells you

Each of these came out of a register read, an arithmetic check or a complete-table read — not out of marketing material. Three of them are credits to the developer and this page says so, because a page that only ever finds faults is not reading, it is editorialising.

Two licensed products, three marketed tabs — and not one published floor plan

The register files TWO components and the developer’s own permit panel gives TWO unit lines: 50 + 18 = 68. The microsite offers THREE floor-plan tabs — Type A, Type B and Type C — with no text, no areas and no room schedules behind any of them, and no floor-plan asset appears in the developer’s media library at all. So the layouts below carry the filed and registered particulars and no drawing. Both filed statutory advertisements print a third lot size that the register does not carry, and the third card below says exactly what that means for a buyer standing in the sales gallery.

Why there is no drawing on this page. The developer publishes three floor-plan tabs with nothing behind them, and its content-management media library — which is open and which we read in full — contains no floor-plan asset at all. There is no filed built-up schedule either, because neither filed generation carries a statutory particulars block. So no per-type layout can be taken from the developer, and this page would rather carry a stated absence than a drawing it cannot source. The developer’s e-brochure is linked from the microsite as a cloud-drive file and a 360° virtual tour exists at a third-party host; neither was used, and neither is cited for anything. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. The filed statutory bands above are the registered Unit Selling Price ranges, and the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery are what actually bind.

Developer imagery — six items, every one of them from a library that passed the contamination test

What these images are, and the test that lets this page carry them. All six are the developer’s own, from its project microsite’s open content-management library, read in full on 13 October 2026. Five reach the confirmed grade because this host’s titles embed BOTH the project name and the subject; the site plan reaches caption-published. Every alt text on the source host is empty, so the grade comes from the title and nothing else. Five of the six are sky-replaced composites by their own filenames — artists’ impressions, not photographs — which is also exactly what the developer’s own disclaimer says, and every caption on this page says so too. And the test that matters. This licensee holds 18 other registered phases and markets nine developments, so the real risk was a library carrying a sibling scheme’s renders. We ran the contamination test: a targeted search for a sibling phase returned an EMPTY result against a same-endpoint positive control that returned nine real project-named items, and not one of twenty-four items inspected carried a sibling project’s name. An empty result alone proves nothing; an empty result beside a working control on the same endpoint is a finding. So this is a clean single-project library, which is a real credit and only the second one this series has found. What was refused, and why: a DraftV7 of the park view, because the library also holds the high-resolution final of the same view and filename-level evidence of two generations means you use the final; two large untitled photographs whose titles establish nothing; two machine-generated titles; a dozen Illustrator export and artboard names that are logo and icon artwork; a third-party interface icon; and a video poster frame whose subject was never established. Never guess an image subject. Dates on the usable items run July 2024 to June 2025, read from the content-management date field and never from the upload folder, and project 6533-19 has never been re-registered — so there is no risk here of a render depicting a scheme that was never built.

Bandar Bukit Puchong, 47120 Puchong — and the district is SEPANG

Read this before the map. The filed coordinates are 2.967227, 101.622086, from the KPKT record for 6533-19. The approving authority is Majlis Perbandaran Sepang and the approved building-plan reference is MPSEPANG 600-34/1/194 (10) — and that plan prefix is what settles the district, not the postcode and not the township name. And then the honest negative, which is the cleanest this series has recorded: NOT ONE SOURCE PUBLISHES A SINGLE DISTANCE OR DRIVE TIME TO ANYTHING. Not the developer, not either filed document, not either portal record, not any of the three press articles. So this page publishes no distance at all. What it does publish is the list of places somebody names, with the fact that nobody attaches a figure to any of them — which is more useful than an invented number and is the only honest version available.

ERICA RESIDENCE — KPKT project 6533-19, licensee BUKIT HITAM DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

The row below is the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record as read on 13 October 2026, with the developer’s own advertising and sales permit panel used for the four fields the register does not carry. Every value is labelled with the surface it came from, because on this project the two surfaces disagree on one field and agree to the sen on four others. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.

Source and date. KPKT KPKT TEDUH register, developer code 6533, project record 6533-19, read 13 October 2026; all nineteen project records on this licence walked individually, with 6533-20 returning CLIENT_ERROR against jumlahProjek: 19 — walk and count agree, so there is no dormant twin and no unlisted phase. The No. Pendaftaran, the approving authority, the approved plan reference and the land-encumbrance field come from the developer’s own permit panel, which is the only statutory surface this project has, because neither filed HIMS generation carries a statutory particulars block.

What this table is and is not. It is the public statutory record plus a developer-published permit panel, both read on one day and both dated here. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and the registered band is a filed range, not what any individual home costs today. The price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery are what bind. The register is a record of filings, not an inspection: it does not certify that construction matches the plan, that the progress figure was surveyed, or that handover will happen on the contractual date.

The delivery position, stated as a position and not as a verdict

As at 13 October 2026: 97.50% built, no CCC, no vacant possession date, Lancar, no approved extension, and contractual vacant possession due 15 October 2026. Three things can be said, and this page says all three. First, the register does NOT flag this project late. status.keseluruhan reads Lancar — on track — and Lewat, the register’s own late flag, is absent. We looked for it specifically, because this page checks for it on every project. Second, there is no approved extension to fall back on. On most projects the question is whether an extension was consumed or overrun. Here there is nothing to consume: the 24-month period runs out on 15 October 2026 and pindaanTempohSerahKosong reads Tidak with tempohTambahanDiluluskan: Tiada. Third, the arithmetic: roughly 100% of the contractual programme has elapsed against a 97.50% progress band. Those are the only two numbers available and they are close. What this page will NOT say is “late”, “delayed” or “on time”. None of the three is established — the register says on track, there is no completion certificate, and the position is simply the position on the date it was read. A page that turned this into a verdict would be inventing a finding. And the caveat that makes the 97.50% honest. peratusSiap is a BAND, not a measurement. The identical figure sits on an unrelated licensee’s cancelled scheme about 4 km away, and the legacy rows on this very licence read 2.50 / 7.50 / 27.00 / 90.00 against statuses of completed with CFO. Never compute a completion date from it. It reads a sane 100.00% on every completed modern record on this licence, so the banding is confined, but it is real. One more date, from the group itself. The developer’s own permit panel prints a completion date of “July 2026” — 3½ months EARLIER than its own contractual obligation, and it has passed. Meanwhile the listed parent’s own guidance to the market is “by year-end 2026”, which is later than the contractual date. Both are published here with their sources, and the dates are left to speak.

Foreign buyers: three legs, and the price leg is the one that does not decide it

Leg one, price: 68 of 68 clear the floor, and it is the cleanest pass this page has had to report. Selangor Zone 1 — Petaling, Gombak, Hulu Langat, Sepang and Klang — carries a minimum purchase price for a non-citizen of RM2,000,000. Zone 2 (Kuala Selangor, Kuala Langat) is also RM2,000,000; Zone 3 (Hulu Selangor, Sabak Bernam) is RM1,000,000. Note that the Selangor figure is DOUBLE the Kuala Lumpur one, and a 47120 Puchong address reads as Klang Valley and invites the RM1,000,000 assumption. Against RM2,000,000, the 50 homes on 35′×70′ lots run 1.198× to 1.584× the floor and the 18 on 35′×80′ lots run 1.244× to 1.377×. The entire band sits above the floor: the cheapest home clears by RM396,900 of headroom and the dearest by RM1,168,000. No unit straddles, so nothing here is undeterminable on price. Leg two, title — and this is the leg that governs. Schedule G plus a -(L) permit tail plus a 24-month contract period means sale together with the land, i.e. INDIVIDUAL title, not strata title. Published Selangor guidance — including IQI’s own guide to buying land in Malaysia as a foreigner, which does carry the restriction — states that individual-title landed property is not permitted to foreigners in the main zones, and that only strata and landed-strata schemes are. One source additionally conditions eligibility on the scheme being gated and guarded. That condition is not evidenced here: the filed nine-item facilities legend contains no security item of any kind — no guardhouse, no perimeter fencing, no CCTV, no boom gate, no personnel. Gerbang means gate or archway and sits between a walkway and a rest deck among landscape features; it is not a security commitment. And nobody claims gated-and-guarded for this scheme either — not the developer, not either portal, not the press — which is cleaner than a false claim would be and is worth saying. Leg three, and it is a hole rather than an answer: Sekatan Kepentingan is UNREADABLE on this project. Neither filed generation carries a statutory particulars block and the register does not carry the field for this record, so the single strongest foreign-buyer signal this page normally reads cannot be read at all. That is NOT the same as Tiada — an absence of the field is not a clearance. This page writes it as UNREADABLE, never as absent and never as present. The answer, in one sentence: every home clears the RM2,000,000 price bar comfortably, and that probably does not help, because the title question almost certainly bars foreign purchase regardless and the one document that would settle it does not exist. Confirm with Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor before you rely on either leg — PTG Selangor publishes no reachable circular, so the RM2,000,000 figure here rests on a three-source consensus and the title rule on published guidance. Nobody — not the developer, not either portal, not the press — says any of this.

The GreenRE Platinum provisional: the sentence this page can defend, and the one it will not repeat

The rating is real, and it is correctly labelled by everyone who publishes it. GreenRE’s own register carries Semi Detached Houses (Erica), developer cell Bukit Hitam Development Sdn Bhd — the KPKT licensee, character for character, which is the only test that has ever separated a genuine row from a near-identical decoy — at PLATINUM, PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATION, table status ACTIVE, dated 17 November 2023, on the residential RES v3.2 tool. The tool code matters: RES means the homes were assessed, not a clubhouse, a sales gallery or a commercial podium. And it was read off the one tier that reads completely — 95 rows closing cleanly to the final cell — so this is a complete-table read and not a “found in the reachable portion” result. Credit, three ways. The developer’s own site says “Provisional”, and so do both publishers’ headlines. Nobody over-claims the status here, which this series has had to correct elsewhere. One wording correction all the same: the microsite calls it a “Platinum GreenRE Award”. A provisional certification is not an award. This page describes it as a provisional certification. And PROVISIONAL is not FINAL — it has been provisional since 2023, and no source addresses whether or when it will become final. Nor is an ACTIVE flag proof of current validity: two unrelated Platinum rows in the same register read ACTIVE against their own printed expiry dates in 2024, which have already passed. Now the claim, which is published by the developer and by both publishers and which this page will not repeat. It is sold as the first landed homes in Malaysia to achieve GreenRE Platinum provisional certification. Four things defeat it. (1) A Platinum provisional row on the same residential tool, named Gasing House and held by a different company, is dated 22 March 2021 — two years and eight months earlier — and a “House” is a landed dwelling. (We could not identify that company or project from any public source, so its product type is inference from its name rather than a finding — but a superlative cannot be published over an unresolved contrary row two and a half years older.) (2) The nearest unambiguously landed scheme — another developer’s courtyard-terrace and semi-detached scheme whose register entry literally says Landed 69 Units — is dated 6 December 2023, only NINETEEN DAYS later. A “first” with a nineteen-day margin is not a durable superlative. (3) Two earlier Platinum rows on landed-sounding names from 2015 carry FINAL ratings — a stronger grade than provisional — eight years before this one. (4) And the structural objection: GreenRE publishes NO product type, NO address and NO state. Every landed-versus-high-rise call in the comparison above is name-based inference, and the register physically cannot settle a claim framed in terms it does not record. (5) Finally, it is one press release and not two confirmations: the press statement was issued on a Saturday and both publishers published two days later. Two publishers, one briefing, one day — and neither tested the claim or named the register. So here is the sentence this page can defend, in full, and it is not shortened: “Erica Residence holds a GreenRE Platinum provisional certification, dated 17 November 2023 in GreenRE’s own register and issued to the project’s licensed developer, Bukit Hitam Development Sdn Bhd, on the residential RES v3.2 tool. It is the earliest multi-unit landed housing scheme in GreenRE’s published Platinum register — ahead of the next one by nineteen days. The widely repeated claim that it is the first landed homes in Malaysia to hold a Platinum provisional certification cannot be verified, because GreenRE’s register records no product type and because at least one earlier Platinum provisional row on the residential tool appears to be a landed dwelling.” And a twelve-month date discrepancy, reported and not resolved. The register dates the certification 17 November 2023; the ceremony and the press statement are dated 16–18 November 2024. Twelve months and one day apart. The obvious reading is a 2023 issue handed over at a 2024 event, but no document says so. Both dates are published here; where only one can be, it is the register’s. What is kept OFF this page, deliberately. This licensee holds three other GreenRE rows — an adjacent sibling phase with a Bronze FINAL, and two commercial rows on the non-residential tool at Silver and Bronze. None of them is this project’s, in either direction: the sibling’s FINAL must not make Erica sound certified, and Erica’s PLATINUM must not be read back onto the sibling’s Bronze. The same-group sibling is the most seductive error available on a page like this, and here it is the same licensee, the same township and the adjacent phase. Note also that the developer advertises only one of its four rows and mentions none of the other three — so this is an active green participant that under-advertises itself, which is the inverse of the usual failure and is a credit. On GBI: the GBI directory is unreachable, so this page says that no GBI rating is CLAIMED by the developer and that GBI’s own directory could not be read — never “no GBI rating”, which the evidence does not support.

The nineteen-phase township delivery record — and every caveat that must be printed with it

This exists only because licence 6533 is a township licence, and no consumer source publishes a single line of it. We walked 6533-1 to 6533-19 individually; 6533-20 returns CLIENT_ERROR against jumlahProjek: 19, so the walk and the count agree. Only FIVE of the nineteen carry BOTH a first-SPA date and a completion-certificate date, so only five can be scored against a contractual date. Here is the honest scoring. 5 of 5 were certified complete INSIDE their governing date. 4 of those 5 took NO extension and still beat their ORIGINAL date — a 46-unit Jadual G phase by 1 day; a 300-unit, 21-storey Jadual H phase by about 6 weeks; a 140-unit Jadual H phase by about 8½ months; and the 43-unit Jadual G phase immediately before Erica by about 7 months. The fifth — the only Ya on the whole licence — took a +5-month extension on a 137-unit Jadual H phase and landed about two months INSIDE the revised date, i.e. about two months past its original. That extension was CONSUMED, not overrun, and it is NOT Erica’s. Now the caveats, which must be printed with the record or the record is misleading. (1) Four of the five record vp: “-” — only one of them records an actual vacant-possession date. So four of five are scored on the completion certificate, not on handover. (2) Eight records are CFO-era and carry no SPA dates at all, so they cannot be scored in either direction, and their progress figures are visibly unreliable — one of them reads 7.50 per cent against a status of completed with CCC and a certificate date of 2010. (3) Four registrations are Tiada Maklumat with zero units and, in one case, no permit at all — they are register placeholders, not deliveries, and this page does not count them as either. (4) Compare this record to nothing else. It is materially weaker evidence than a township in this series where all thirteen phases carried dates, and materially stronger than one with zero completed phases. Another township’s record must never migrate onto this page, and this one must not migrate off it. And one hypothesis this licence kills in the cleanest way yet. The idea that the contract schedule predicts whether a developer takes an extension is dead, and this is the widest sample against it: Tidak on EIGHTEEN records and Ya on ONE, across a licence that carries BOTH Jadual G/24-month and Jadual H/36-month registrations, with the single Ya sitting on a Jadual H record. So the schedule predicts nothing. Two further things the walk shows, and both belong to the township rather than to this phase. The licence has delivered genuine controlled low-cost housing — one registration is filed as low-cost housing for 560 units and another files 400 units at a flat RM72,000 — while Erica itself has no affordable allocation at all. The township’s history and this phase’s economics are different things and this page does not blur them. And the register’s own project-LIST order is not the serial index: Erica is listed fifteenth of nineteen and is 6533-19, with the two phases listed before it being -17 and -18. Never infer a serial from a list position.

What is NOT filed and NOT published — the precise list, because neither filed generation has a statutory block

This is the most consequential structural fact about the paperwork on this project, and it is a first for this page’s method. BOTH HIMS filed-document path forms are live under this licence — the older project-serial form and the newer batch form, whose URL came out of the register’s own filing array and was not guessed — and NEITHER carries a BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN statutory particulars block. The generation diff is a clean null: the two generations are identical on everything legible — the same heading, the same three lot sizes, the same HAK MILIK KEKAL, the same nine-item facility legend, the same built-up line, the same unexplained 1988, and the same dot-matrix Spesifikasi grid with no fixture labels on it at all. The consequence: the developer’s own permit panel is the ONLY statutory surface this project has, and it is richer than the filed documents by nine fields — the registration number, the approving authority, the plan reference, the tenure, the land encumbrance, the unit split, the completion date, the licence validity and the price band. That inverts this page’s usual posture, which is to catch a developer panel being stale or wrong. Here the panel is the richest statutory surface in existence for the project and its prices match the register to the sen — and it is nevertheless a full generation STALE on the permit. A surface can be exact on four fields and wrong on one. Do not generalise from either half. And a mirror-image oddity worth one line: “Erica” appears in NEITHER filed document, in either generation — the filed heading is a generic descriptor plus the locality — while the REGISTER’s project name is a clean exact match to the marketing name. On this project the register is clean and the filing is not, which is the reverse of the usual position. So the following are unavailable from any statutory document, and most from any source at all. Louis will ask the developer for them; until a document arrives they stay off this page. (1) Sekatan Kepentingan — the restriction in interest. UNREADABLE, which is the single most consequential gap here, because it is the strongest foreign-buyer signal available. (2) Keluasan Tanah — no filed parcel area exists; the register’s keluasan is a built-up. (3) Car park — no bay count on the register, the panel, either filed document, either portal or any of three press articles. No number is stated here. (4) The 35′×80′ built-up — not printed. (5) The development parcel’s lot or PT number, and the mukim — the register prints no mukim, and the only lot number anywhere is the sales gallery’s. (6) Every consultant and the main contractor — no architect, engineer, quantity surveyor or builder is named by anyone. (7) A labelled Spesifikasi schedule — both filed documents carry the grid with no fixture names, so not one internal fitting can be read off a filed document. (8) Any chargee — the panel says none and nothing contradicts it, so this rests on one surface and is stated as resting on one. (9) Take-up — the parent reports “healthy take-up rates” twice with no figure, and there is no unsold-unit column on any surface. (10) GFA and plot ratio — published by nobody. (11) The construction commencement date, and therefore the float test. No stock-exchange announcement exists — the contract almost certainly fell below the listed parent’s own announcement threshold, and here it is the parent itself that is small enough for that threshold to bite — and the construction-record search returns an error. So there is no commencement date and the float test cannot be run in either direction. What can be run instead is the other half: the contractual programme is 24 months from 15 October 2024, so as at 13 October 2026 roughly 24 of 24 months have elapsed against a 97.50% progress band. (12) The 70′×100′ product’s units, price, built-up and registration. (13) EVERY distance and drive time — see the location section. Not one source publishes a single figure, and this page publishes none. (14) The maintenance arrangement after handover. A Schedule G scheme creates no statutory management corporation, no statutory service charge and no sinking fund — and no source says what will maintain the park, the basketball court and the internal roads after the completion certificate is issued, or who will pay for it. On a 68-home enclave with shared landscape that is a real and unanswered question, and it is on the list of things to ask in writing. (15) A reconciling GDV — see the disclosure below. And one register field that is simply wrong, recorded for completeness: the website KPKT publishes for this licensee resolves, is live, and is a stock content-management install — a default theme, one “Hello world!” post dated January 2025, a sample page, and a navigation bar whose every item links to nothing. It carries no statutory block, no licence number, no permit and no mention of this project, the licensee or the parent. A client following the register’s own link lands on “Hello world!”. The real project site is not named by the register at all.

What this page does not publish, and why

This page withholds five classes of figure, and it names each one so that the withholding does not read as concealment. (1) The restricted family, as a matter of standing instruction. Nothing on this page carries a discount, a rebate, a nett price, a promotion of any kind, a commission figure, a freebie, an incentive, a guaranteed-rental rate or a yield projection. (2) The ethnic-allocation field. The developer’s own permit panel carries a Bumiputera price-adjustment field. The field exists, and that is stated here; its VALUE is withheld and appears nowhere on this page in either language. It appears on no other surface — not in either filed document, which have no statutory block at all, and not in the register. (3) A “from” figure that sits BELOW the filed statutory minimum, together with the price per square foot derived from it. One publisher carries both, across two of its own articles. Count the publishers correctly: the two mastheads involved belong to one media group, so this is one independent publisher carrying it twice, not two sources. Neither the figure nor the derived per-square-foot number is published here, in either language. And this page names which kind of below-minimum figure it is withholding, because the kind matters: this is the original and most serious kind — a developer-era marketing “from” figure on a scheme that is still selling. It is not a resale floor on a long-completed scheme, it is not an asking range for an unlicensed component, and it is not a pre-launch agent estimate made where no statutory floor yet existed. The most probable explanation, stated as inference and not as a finding, is that the figure belongs to the superseded permit generation — the launch-era price list — and the GDV arithmetic at (5) points independently the same way. And credit where it is due: the OTHER publisher gets it right. The Edge group’s record prints RM2,396,900 — the registered statutory minimum, exactly, to the ringgit. This series has had to withhold below-floor figures on several projects where every publisher carried them; this is the first where the discrepancy sits with one publisher and the other matches the filing to the ringgit. (4) A discrepancy in the other direction, which breaches nothing and is reported. The same article’s upper figure, about RM3.12 million, sits roughly RM48,000 BELOW the registered maximum of RM3,168,000. A marketing figure under a statutory maximum breaks no rule; it is recorded here as further evidence that the whole of that range belongs to an earlier generation. (5) The circulating GDV, which is handled rather than repeated. The announced figure is RM149,604,000 (also reported as “RM149 million”). Against the registered band it cannot be current. The sum of the filed minima is (50 × RM2,396,900) + (18 × RM2,488,200) = RM119,845,000 + RM44,787,600 = RM164,632,600; the sum of the maxima is RM158,400,000 + RM49,579,200 = RM207,979,200. So the announced GDV sits RM15,028,600 — 9.1% — BELOW the sum of the minimum prices of the very homes that produce it, which is arithmetically impossible for a current figure. And RM149,604,000 ÷ 68 = RM2,200,059 per home, which is below the lowest registered price of RM2,396,900. The conclusion published here is the arithmetic and its consequence — that the circulating GDV is a launch-era figure from a superseded price generation — and not the figure as if it were current. (6) And one difference a reader coming from a sibling page needs stated. There is no Harga Mampu Milik (LPHS) row on this record at all — no state-controlled affordable allocation, no -RMM or -AH type-code pair, no duplicated built-up at two prices, no Rumah Selangorku flag, and no source anywhere mentions affordable housing at this scheme. So the whole band is open market and the RM2,396,900 minimum may be read as a genuine open-market entry price. That is the opposite of some other pages on this site where a register’s minimum is a controlled price that must never be framed as an entry price. The question is a fair one to ask here, because this licence HAS carried genuine controlled low-cost stock historically — one of its registrations files 400 units at a flat RM72,000 and another is registered as low-cost housing for 560 units. Those are the township’s history, not this phase’s economics, and a page should not blur them. (7) Finally, what simply does not exist here. No leaseback, no guaranteed rental return, no rental programme, no furnishing package and no buyer inducement of any kind is mentioned by ANY source on this project, so that entire family of restrictions does not arise — there is nothing of that kind to withhold. And the developer’s own panel publishes none of it either, which is a credit.

Erica Residence — the questions, answered from the filed record

Nearby and comparable — and three names that are NOT this project

Published 13 October 2026 · last verified 13 October 2026 against the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for project 6533-19, both HIMS filed-document path forms, the developer’s own advertising and sales permit panel, the GreenRE certification register across all four tiers, the GBI directory, the listed parent’s results announcements, both URL forms of the EdgeProp record and four Star-group articles · marketing information, not an offer