Licensed, permitted, selling and 0.00% built · licensee KIARA SQUARE SDN. BHD. 201801038393 (1300424-H) · KPKT developer code 31334, licence 31334/03-2031/0081(N) valid 24 Mar 2026 – 23 Mar 2031, Aktif · registered scheme Residensi Damaisari 2, project 31334-1 · permit 31334-1/07-2029/0488(N)-(S) valid 2 Jul 2026 – 1 Jul 2029 · Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya, plan MBSJ.BGN.BP1.600-1/10/5/11(22) · Daerah Petaling, Selangor Zone 1, foreign-buyer floor RM2,000,000

SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1, Subang Jaya — registered `RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2`, KPKT project `31334-1`: 928 serviced apartments on `Jadual H` in two 44-storey towers, and the contractual construction period was extended from 36 months to 56 — +20 months, approved at 0.00% built. The developer publishes the revised date, 10 March 2031, and credit is due for that — while the original 10 July 2029 date and the extension itself exist ONLY in the KPKT register

Q: Why does the KPKT register show a different name? I searched “Westfield” and found nothing.

That is the expected result, not a warning sign. The registered scheme name is RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2 , and “Westfield” appears in no register record, no statutory filing field and no government document. It exists as the marketing name on the developer's own panel, as the project's web domain, and in one publisher's records. The register's search works on DEVELOPER names, not project names , so even searching the registered name returns nothing. Search instead: developer code 31334 , project code 31334-1 , licence 31334/03-2031/0081(N) , or the name Residensi Damaisari 2 . One more layer, because the developer itself runs three naming systems: its own image alt text calls this project Mosaic 2 , its own navigation calls the neighbour Mosaic 1 , and the register calls them Residensi Damaisari 2 and Residensi Damaisari . Insist on a register code on every document you are shown.

Q: Can a foreigner buy here?

On price, no — and it is not close. Daerah Petaling sits in Selangor Zone 1, where the published minimum purchase price for a non-citizen is RM2,000,000, double the Kuala Lumpur figure. The highest price filed anywhere in this scheme is RM866,000, which is 43.3% of that floor, so ZERO of 928 units reach it (our own arithmetic on the filed maximum and the published floor). On title the news is better but incomplete. The scheme is Schedule H with an advertising permit tail of -(S), i.e. strata title, and Selangor permits foreign purchase of strata property in the main zones — so the individual-title bar that defeats a landed scheme does not arise here. But Sekatan Kepentingan CANNOT BE READ on this project, because the filed advertisement has no text layer and the developer's own panel omits the line. This page does not say that no restriction is filed; it says the clause cannot be read. Have it read on the title search, and get the Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor position in writing before paying anything. Separately: the 140 Type A units are state-controlled affordable stock with LPHS eligibility conditions, which is a different bar and has nothing to do with nationality.

Q: Is the project late?

No, and this page will not imply it. The register reads status.keseluruhan: Lancar — on track — and Lewat , the register's own late flag, was looked for specifically and is NOT present. The governing contractual date is 10 March 2031, which is 4.4 years after the research date, and even the superseded original date of 10 July 2029 is 2.7 years away. What IS true, and is the point of this page, is that the contractual construction period was extended from 36 months to 56 before construction began. About 95 days, or roughly 5.6%, of the revised programme had elapsed at 13 October 2026, against 0.00% built on both towers (our own arithmetic on two filed dates) . That is a position on a date, not a verdict, and no document anywhere gives a reason for the extension. Nor can the usual cross-check be run: no main contractor, no contract sum and no construction commencement date is published by anybody, so the question of whether the build programme fits the contractual date has no inputs.

Start with the delivery arithmetic, because it has two halves and most pages would print only the flattering one. The KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for project 31334-1, read on 13 October 2026, files a Schedule H contract with tempohAsal: 36 Bulan and a first sale and purchase agreement dated 10 July 2026, which makes original contractual vacant possession 10 July 2029. Then it files pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 20 Bulan, tempohPembinaanBaharu: 56 Bulan and serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama: 10 Mac 2031. So the contractual construction period for this scheme is 56 months and not the 36 months Schedule H starts from, and the extension was approved while both registered components still read peratus: 0.00 — weeks after the first sale. Now the credit, and it is a real one. The developer’s own statutory advertising and sales permit panel, its microsite and all three of the publisher’s records for this project print “March 2031” — which is the REVISED date, not the original. It had the easier option of printing 2029 and did not take it. On this series’ tally that is the cleanest disclosure of its kind we have found: the marketed completion date IS the governing contractual date. And now the gap, which is why this page exists. The original 36-month period, the 10 July 2029 date and the fact that a 20-month extension was approved at all appear on NO public surface whatever — not on the panel, not on the microsite, not on any portal record, not in the filed advertisement (which cannot be read at all, see below), and not in any press report. The register is the only place in the world a buyer can learn it. Two things this page will NOT do with that finding. It will not call the project late: status.keseluruhan reads Lancar, and Lewat — the register’s own late flag — was looked for specifically and is NOT present. And it will not predict: about 95 days, or ≈5.6%, of the 56-month revised programme had elapsed at the research date against 0.00% built, the original date is 2.7 years away and the revised date 4.4 years away. That is the position, not a verdict. Then the name, which will defeat a client’s own check if nobody warns them. “Westfield” appears in no register record, no statutory filing field and no government document. The registered name is RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2; the developer’s own Open Graph image alt text calls the project Mosaic 2; its own project navigation lists Damaisari and Mosaic 1 as the neighbours; and the licensed developer is named after a different project of the group’s in a different district. A KPKT or LPHS search for “Westfield” returns nothing, and that is expected. Search the code 31334, the licence number, or the name Residensi Damaisari 2. Then the price row that is the easiest thing on this page to misread. The filed statutory range is RM270,000 – RM866,000, and it matches to the sen across three surfaces. But RM270,000 is a Harga Mampu Milik state-controlled affordable price, independently confirmed by LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price list dated 10 September 2026, which names Residensi Damaisari 2, Kiara Square Sdn Bhd, Daerah Petaling and the figure in one row. It attaches to the 140 Type A units, it is restricted stock with eligibility conditions, and it is NOT an open-market entry price. This page never writes “from RM270,000”. And the 140 units lead straight to the gap in the marketing. Every marketing surface gives the sizes as 768 to 1,008 sq ft. That range omits Type A entirely — 140 of 928 units, 15.1% of the building, at about 550 sq ft. The filed unit mix is A 140 · B 428 · C 216 · D 144, and it closes to 928 twice over. A buyer reading any brochure would conclude the smallest unit here is 768 sq ft. More than one in seven units is smaller than that. Then the neighbour, 211 metres away, whose registered name differs from this one by a single character. SCP Mosaic is registered RESIDENSI DAMAISARI — no numeral — under a DIFFERENT licensee (Cheras Traders Square Sdn. Bhd., code 31004), with its own licence, its own permit, its own building plan, 924 units, its own price band to RM1,271,000, a 12-month extension, about 25% built and a completion date 20 months EARLIER. Nothing crosses between them on this page: not a figure, not a date, not an image, not a floor plan, not a facility. And the foreign-buyer answer, which nobody computes. Zero of 928 units clear the Selangor Zone 1 floor of RM2,000,000. The dearest unit filed in the whole scheme is 43.3% of it. The scheme is strata, so the individual-title bar does not arise — but Sekatan Kepentingan CANNOT BE READ on this project, and this page says cannot be read rather than none filed, because the single filed advertisement is an image-only scan.

36 → 56 months. pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 20 Bulan — approved at 0.00% builtRevised VP 10 Mar 2031 against an original 10 Jul 2029 — and the original date exists ONLY in the KPKT registerCREDIT: every developer surface prints “March 2031”, i.e. the REVISED date. The marketed date IS the governing dateNOT flagged Lewat — status.keseluruhan: Lancar. ≈5.6% of the revised programme elapsed against 0.00% builtRegistered RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2, project 31334-1 — “Westfield” is in NO register and NO filing. Search the codeRM270,000 is a STATE-CONTROLLED affordable price on LPHS Selangor’s own list of 10 Sep 2026 — not an open-market entry priceFiled statutory range RM270,000 – RM866,000, identical to the sen on three surfaces, both register components. No spliceThe marketed 768–1,008 sq ft range OMITS 140 of 928 units — 15.1% of the building, the ≈550 sq ft Type A allocation0 of 928 clear the RM2,000,000 Zone 1 foreign-buyer floor — the dearest filed unit is 43.3% of it. Nobody else says soSekatan Kepentingan CANNOT BE READ — the one filed advertisement is an image-only scan. Not “none filed”: unreadableThe sibling 211 m away is RESIDENSI DAMAISARI — one character apart, different licensee, VP 20 months earlier928 units: A 140 · B 428 · C 216 · D 144 — closes to 928 twice, and the register’s components read 464 + 4642 towers × 44 storeys, tingkat: 44 on both register components. Filed Pangsapuri Servis, sold as a service apartmentPermit 1 pre-dates SPA 1 by 8 days; the licence pre-dates the first sale by 108 days; permit history EMPTY, so cover is continuous by constructionThe developer’s own statutory panel is CORRECT on every cross-checkable field — licence, permit, registered name, PBT, tenure, chargee, units, storeys, band. Credit itFREEHOLD (Pegangan Kekal) on four surfaces, one of them the statutory panel · chargee Malayan Banking BerhadNo green certification of any kind — the only green claim anywhere is “follows GBI standards” in SPONSORED editorial. Targeting, not certificationNO award. The only award on any group surface is an HR Asia employer award, carried in alt text. This page does not say “award-winning”The group’s record: 4 CCC’d registrations, 4 of 4 inside the GOVERNING date, 3 of 4 beat the ORIGINAL — and The Birch missed its original by 136 daysNo contractor, no contract sum, no commencement date — the group is private, so the float test cannot be run in either directionGDV RM597.58m sits 3.75% ABOVE the sum of the published per-type minima — no stale-generation signal. The test PASSESDensity 320.0 units/acre on 2.9 acres that is developer-supplied, not filed — the register reads keluasan: 0 mpsNo below-minimum “from” figure exists anywhere on this project — an unusually clean position, and this page credits it≈70 developer-published distances, EVERY ONE attributed — and the station the project markets itself by is named with NO distance

WhatsApp Louis for the filed particulars Ask about the 36 → 56 month extension Investment & own-stay highlights Foreign buyer? Read this first Keep this and SCP Mosaic apart

Every figure on this page is traced to a named published source: the public KPKT TEDUH register licensee record for developer code 31334 and the project record 31334-1, with 31334-2 returning CLIENT_ERROR against jumlahProjek: 1 so that the serial walk and the count agree; the six other registrations in this developer’s licence family, walked individually for the delivery record below; the KPKT HIMS filed-advertisement file server, where the one published file is an image-only scan; LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price project list dated 10 September 2026; the developer’s own advertising and sales permit pop-up panel on its project microsite, read separately from the group’s project page; three separate record forms from one publisher, one of which is SPONSORED content and is labelled as such everywhere it is used; a 2019 report in The Edge Malaysia; and GreenRE’s certification register across all four tiers plus the Bronze certification-entry list, with the GBI directory unreachable. Where nothing is published this page says so instead of filling the gap — so it carries no car-park count, no lot or PT number, no mukim, no contractor, no contract sum, no commencement date, no GFA, no plot ratio, no shareholding, no unsold-stock figure and no distance that a source does not itself publish. And it borrows nothing whatever from SCP Mosaic / Residensi Damaisari, the sibling phase 211 m away, nor from the group’s Kensho Residence, The Birch, The Societe, Pangsapuri Lido, Cheras Traders Square or Residensi Cheras Selatan 2, nor from any other Subang Jaya page on this site — Alora, Amika and Luminar are different parcels by different developers and not one distance, price or figure has been read across from them.

+20months of approved extension of time, on a scheme that is 0.00% built. pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 20 Bulan, tempohPembinaanBaharu: 56 Bulan on project 31334-1. The fourth-largest extension this series has recorded, and the EARLIEST — granted weeks after the first sale and purchase agreement of 10 July 2026, before a single percent of the building existed. No document anywhere gives a reason

10 Mar 2031the governing contractual vacant possession date, and the developer publishes it. Its own statutory panel, its microsite and all three publisher records print March 2031. What none of them prints is the original date of 10 July 2029, or the fact that it moved. Under Schedule H the period runs from EACH purchaser’s own agreement date — 10 Mar 2031 is 56 months from the FIRST one

0 of 928units clear the RM2,000,000 Selangor Zone 1 foreign-buyer floor. The dearest unit filed anywhere in this scheme is RM866,000, which is 43.3% of it (our own arithmetic on the filed maximum and the published floor, stated as such). The scheme is strata so the title bar does not arise — the price closes the door instead, on every unit. Not one marketing or portal source says so

140 of 928units — 15.1% of the building — are left out of the marketed size range entirely. Every surface says 768 – 1,008 sq ft; the filed mix is A 140 · B 428 · C 216 · D 144, and the Type A units are about 550 sq ft. They are also the units the RM270,000 state-controlled price attaches to, which is why the omission matters twice over

3 surfacescarry the statutory price range RM270,000 – RM866,000 identically, to the sen — the register’s two components, the developer’s own statutory panel and the publisher’s transcription of it. No splice, no orphan figure, no third row. This series has caught spliced registry bands on four projects; a clean one deserves naming as readily as a bad one

211 mbetween this project’s filed coordinates and the sibling phase’s (our own arithmetic on two filed coordinate pairs, stated as such). Two adjacent parcels, two companies, two licences, two permits, two building plans, four 44-storey towers and completion dates 20 months apart — and registered names ONE CHARACTER APART. Nobody else tells you how to tell them apart

SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1 — aerial view of the two 44-storey towers (artist’s impression). Subject confirmed from the developer’s own content-management title, which names both the project and the view. This is a render of a building that the KPKT register reports as 0.00% built on both towers at 13 October 2026. It is not a photograph of anything that exists.

SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1 — tower facade (artist’s impression). Subject confirmed from the developer’s own content-management title. The 44 storeys shown are consistent with tingkat: 44 on both registered components. A render, not a photograph — 0.00% built.

SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1 — arrival entrance (artist’s impression). Subject confirmed from the developer’s own content-management title. No level number is attached to this view, because the developer’s own facilities schedule contradicts itself on Levels 6 and 7. A render, not a photograph.

Answer block

SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1 at a glance — the filed and registered particulars

Every row below is either a field in the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for project 31334-1, a field on the developer’s own statutory advertising and sales permit panel, a row on LPHS Selangor’s controlled-price project list of 10 September 2026, or arithmetic on those figures labelled as ours. Where a field is not filed, not published or not readable, the row says which of the three it is — because they are different things and a buyer is entitled to know which one applies.

Marketing name: SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1The developer uses Residences (plural) on every surface. “Westfield” appears in no register record, no statutory field and no government document
Registered scheme name: RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2KPKT KPKT TEDUH register projek.nama; the developer’s own statutory panel; and LPHS Selangor’s controlled-price list of 10 Sep 2026. Three surfaces, one name
KPKT project code: 31334-131334-2 returns CLIENT_ERROR against jumlahProjek: 1 — the serial walk and the count agree, so there is no dormant twin and no unlisted phase
Licensed developer: KIARA SQUARE SDN. BHD. 201801038393 (1300424-H)The registration number is printed on the developer’s own statutory panel, which is the surface the regulations require it on. TEDUH prints no registration number at all
Developer licence: 31334/03-2031/0081(N), valid 24 Mar 2026 – 23 Mar 2031Register and panel identical. The /03-2031/ segment reconstructs the printed expiry exactly. (N) on a licence = first issue, never renewed, and Rekod Lesen Terdahulu is EMPTY
Advertising and sales permit: 31334-1/07-2029/0488(N)-(S), valid 2 Jul 2026 – 1 Jul 2029CURRENT at 13 Oct 2026, about 2 years 8½ months to run. /07-2029/ reconstructs the expiry exactly. Permit history EMPTY — this is the first and only permit the scheme has held, so cover is continuous by construction. The -(S) tail = strata title
Local authority and building plan: Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya (MBSJ) · MBSJ.BGN.BP1.600-1/10/5/11(22)Settled from the filed plan prefix, not from a postcode and not from a township name. MPSJ and MBSJ are ONE council renamed in 2020 — the sibling phase still carries MPSJ, which is a date artefact, not a different authority
District: Daerah Petaling, Selangor — Selangor Zone 1The KPKT register leaves daerah as a bare -. The district comes from LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price list, which files this scheme under Petaling. The mukim is absent from the record entirely and is not estimated here
Filed building type and contract: Pangsapuri Servis on Schedule HThe register says Pangsapuri Servis, the developer’s panel says “Service Apartment”, every portal label agrees and the permit tail is -(S). Filed label, marketing label and portal label all match — worth one line of credit
Units and mix: 928 — A 140 · B 428 · C 216 · D 144Closes twice: the type split sums to 928 and the register’s two components read 464 + 464. No Baki Unit field exists on this record, so the published “50% take-up” claim cannot be tested
Towers and storeys: 2 towers × 44 storeystingkat: 44 on both registered components. No source maps the four unit types to the two towers, and 140 / 428 / 216 / 144 does not divide evenly into 464 + 464
Built-up, as marketed: 768 – 1,008 sq ft — and this range omits 140 unitsNO filed built-up schedule can be read (the one filed advertisement is an image-only scan). Type B 768, C 868, D 1,008 sq ft. Type A is about 550 sq ft and appears in no marketed range at all; the 550 figure is printed once, with no type label, so the A = 550 mapping is an INFERENCE
Bedrooms and bathrooms: Register ranges bilik: 1, 3, 4 and bilik air: 1, 2, 3There is NO two-bedroom type. The ranges are consistent with A 1/1, B 3/2, C 3+study/2 and D 4/3 — but the register does not assign them per type, and the filed schedule cannot be read
Filed statutory price range: RM270,000.00 – RM866,000.00Statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum from the legally filed advertisement particulars, carried by the register (both components, identically) and the developer’s own statutory panel to the sen. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer
What RM270,000 actually is: A Selangor STATE-CONTROLLED affordable price for the 140 Type A unitsNamed on LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price project list, Tarikh Kemaskini 10 September 2026: Residensi Damaisari 2 · Kiara Square Sdn Bhd · Petaling · Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan · RM270,000. Restricted stock with LPHS eligibility conditions. NOT an open-market entry price
Marketed starting prices, open-market types: Type B from RM636,000 · Type C from RM700,000 · Type D from RM797,000Publisher-sourced, labelled as marketed starting prices. All three sit ABOVE the filed statutory minimum and inside the filed maximum, so the below-floor test does not bite in either direction — which is the normal, honest case and is not what this series usually finds
Tenure and encumbrance: FREEHOLD (Pegangan Kekal) · Gadaian to Malayan Banking BerhadFreehold on four surfaces, one of them the statutory panel. No lease expiry arises. The lot or PT number and the title reference are published by nobody
Sekatan Kepentingan: CANNOT BE READ — and that is not the same as “none filed”The one filed advertisement has no text layer, the register exposes no such field, and the developer’s own panel omits the line. This page quotes nothing and infers nothing: have the clause read on the title search
Delivery, as contracted: Original 10 Jul 2029 → revised 10 Mar 2031 (36 → 56 months)tempohAsal: 36 Bulan, first sale and purchase agreement 10 Jul 2026, pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 20 Bulan. The developer publishes the revised date; the original appears only in the register
Build progress and status: 0.00% on both components · status.keseluruhan: Lancarccc and vp both -. Lewat, the register’s own late flag, was looked for specifically and is NOT present. About 95 days (≈5.6%) of the revised 56-month programme had elapsed at the research date (our own arithmetic)
Foreign buyers: 0 of 928 units clear the RM2,000,000 Selangor Zone 1 floorThe dearest filed unit is 43.3% of the floor (our own arithmetic). Strata, so the individual-title bar does not arise — and the 140 LPHS units raise a separate eligibility question that has nothing to do with nationality
Density: 320.0 units per acre (our own arithmetic)928 ÷ 2.9 acres — and the acreage is developer-supplied, published by one publisher group and NOT filed: the register reads keluasan: 0 mps. No GFA and no plot ratio is published by anybody, so no independent check on the acreage is possible
Green certification: NONE recorded, in any tier, provisional or finalThe only green claim anywhere is “follows Green Building Index standards” in SPONSORED editorial — targeting, not certification. GBI’s own directory is unreachable and proves nothing either way
Awards: NONE for this projectThe only award on any group surface is an HR Asia employer award, carried in image alt text. It is a workplace award, not a property award, and this page does not write “award-winning” — nor does the developer
Consultants: Architect KSKA Arkitek Sdn Bhd · interior designer LUXE Interior Sdn BhdThe main contractor is named by NOBODY, and neither is the contract sum or the commencement date. The developer and its whole group are private, so there is no Bursa route and no annual report — the architect is published and the contractor is not
Filed coordinates: 3.058651, 101.595667From the register. The sibling phase files 3.060546, 101.595669 — about 211 m north (our own arithmetic on two filed pairs). These are the only coordinates any source publishes for either phase

Send me the filed particulars and the price list

Explore related topics

The filed statutory particulars are the spine of this page. These links go to the glossary terms it uses and to the location indexes it belongs in — Selangor and Subang Jaya, not Shah Alam, and that distinction is made on this page for a reason.

Nine things about SCP Westfield Residences that no brochure and no portal tells you

Each of these came out of a register read, a state government document, an arithmetic check or a complete-table read — not out of marketing copy. Four of the nine are credits to the developer, and they are printed as plainly as the five that are not.

📅

The construction period was extended from 36 months to 56 — before anything was built

tempohAsal: 36 Bulan, first sale and purchase agreement 10 July 2026, original vacant possession 10 July 2029. Then pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 20 Bulan, tempohPembinaanBaharu: 56 Bulan, revised vacant possession 10 March 2031. Both registered components read peratus: 0.00 at 13 October 2026, so the extension was approved while the site was at zero, weeks after the first sale. It is the fourth-largest extension this series has recorded and the earliest. No document anywhere gives a reason, and the register does NOT flag the project Lewat.

🔍

The original date, and the extension itself, exist only in the register — but the developer does publish the revised one

Credit first, because it is deserved. The developer’s own statutory panel, its microsite and all three publisher records print “March 2031” — the REVISED contractual date. This series has repeatedly caught the opposite, where a filing or a portal still printed a superseded original date after an extension. Here the marketed completion date IS the governing date, and that is the cleanest instance we have found. Then the gap: the 36-month period, the 10 July 2029 date and the existence of the extension appear on NO public surface at all. Nobody is contradicted — nobody mentions it.

📄

The registered name is RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2, and “Westfield” is in no register anywhere

A client’s own KPKT or LPHS search for “Westfield” returns nothing, and that is the expected result, not a red flag. The registered name is RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2 — the previous phase’s registered brand with a numeral appended — while the developer’s own Open Graph alt text calls the project Mosaic 2 and its own navigation lists Damaisari and Mosaic 1 as neighbours. Three parallel naming systems across two phases, and the public name belongs to none of them. Search the code 31334 or the licence number instead.

💰

RM270,000 is a state-controlled affordable price, not an entry price

The filed statutory range is RM270,000 – RM866,000, and it matches to the sen across three surfaces. But RM270,000 is a Harga Mampu Milik figure, confirmed independently on LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price project list dated 10 September 2026, which names Residensi Damaisari 2, Kiara Square Sdn Bhd, Daerah Petaling and the figure in a single row. It attaches to the 140 Type A units, it is restricted stock with eligibility conditions administered by LPHS, and no source publishes those conditions. This page never writes “from RM270,000”.

📏

The marketed size range leaves out one unit in seven

Every marketing surface gives the sizes as 768 to 1,008 sq ft. The filed mix is A 140 · B 428 · C 216 · D 144 = 928. The 140 Type A units — 15.1% of the building — are not in that range. The only surface that prints 550 sq ft at all prints it in a list of four sizes with no type labels, which is why this page calls the A = 550 mapping probable and not filed. A buyer reading any brochure would conclude the smallest unit here is 768 sq ft. It is not.

⚠

There is a near-identical sibling 211 metres away, and its registered name differs by one character

SCP Mosaic is registered RESIDENSI DAMAISARI; this one is RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2. Different licensee (Cheras Traders Square Sdn. Bhd., 201401001409 (1077482-X), developer code 31004), different licence, different advertising permit, different building plan, 924 units against 928, a price range reaching RM1,271,000, a 12-month extension instead of 20, about 25% built instead of 0.00%, and a revised completion date 20 months EARLIER. Both are two 44-storey towers on adjacent parcels of one masterplan. Nothing crosses on this page, and nobody else publishes the distinction.

🔑

Zero of 928 units clear the foreign-buyer floor, and the title question runs the other way

Selangor Zone 1 — Petaling, Gombak, Hulu Langat, Sepang, Klang — carries a minimum purchase price for a non-citizen of RM2,000,000, double the Kuala Lumpur figure. The dearest unit filed in this scheme is RM866,000, or 43.3% of it (our own arithmetic). So the answer is zero of 928, and it is not close. The scheme is strata on Schedule H with a -(S) permit tail, so the individual-title bar that defeats a landed scheme does not arise here — but Sekatan Kepentingan CANNOT BE READ, and this page says cannot be read rather than none filed.

🏠

The developer’s own statutory panel is simply correct — the second time this series has been able to say that

The advertising and sales permit pop-up on the project microsite is correct on every field that can be cross-checked against the register: the licence number and its validity, the permit number and its validity, the registered project name, the approving authority, the plan reference, the tenure, the chargee, the unit total, the type split, the storey count, the price range and the completion date. It also prints the company registration number, which the register does not. So the whole family of developer-data-strip faults this series keeps finding — stale generations, fabricated validity dates, a permit number in the licence field, a below-floor price table — cannot arise on this project. Its one gap is Sekatan Kepentingan, which it omits.

📄

The group’s delivery record tests its own headline claim — and three of four is not four of four

The group’s company profile states that “all SCP completed projects are handed over to purchasers within the scheduled time frame or earlier”. We walked the register. Four registrations carry a completion certificate; 4 of 4 were inside their GOVERNING date, and 3 of 4 also beat their ORIGINAL contractual date — two of them while holding an extension they never consumed. The fourth, The Birch, missed its original date by about 136 days and needed a +17-month extension to be “on time”. And the sentence silently excludes one more record: a 350-unit SoHo scheme whose permit reads Telah Dibatalkan with a component status of Sakit at 82.27% and no completion certificate. No consumer source publishes a line of this.

Project DNA

The register, the licence, the permit and the group’s delivery record — read field by field

This section is the spine of the page. It carries the KPKT licence and permit position, the extension of time in full, the developer’s published facilities schedule with its own internal contradiction named, and the dated timeline with the governing date marked and the superseded one marked too. Everything here is either a register field, a field on the developer’s own statutory panel, a state government list, or arithmetic that is labelled as ours.

928units in two 44-storey towers, filed as Pangsapuri Servis on Schedule H. The type split A 140 · B 428 · C 216 · D 144 closes to 928, and the register’s two components read 464 + 464, so it closes twice. Every one of the 928 is inside the Housing Development Act, with Schedule H, the statutory housing development account, the late-delivery mechanic, the defect liability period and the Tribunal route

56months of contractual construction period, not the 36 that Schedule H starts from. tempohAsal: 36 Bulan → tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 20 Bulan → tempohPembinaanBaharu: 56 Bulan. Approved at 0.00% built. Under Schedule H the clock runs from EACH purchaser’s own sale and purchase agreement date, so 10 March 2031 is 56 months from the first agreement and not from yours

0.00%built on both registered components at 13 October 2026, with ccc: “-” and vp: “-”. status.keseluruhan: Lancar, and Lewat is NOT flagged — we looked. About 95 days, or ≈5.6%, of the revised 56-month programme had elapsed (our own arithmetic on two filed dates). That is a position, not a prediction, and this page makes none

RM270,000 – RM866,000the filed statutory Unit Selling Price range, carried identically to the sen by the register’s two components, the developer’s own statutory panel and the publisher’s transcription of it. The RM270,000 end is a Selangor STATE-CONTROLLED affordable price for the 140 Type A units, named on LPHS Selangor’s own list of 10 September 2026. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer

320.0units per acre (our own arithmetic: 928 ÷ 2.9 acres). The acreage is NOT filed — the register reads keluasan: 0 mps — and the 2.9 acres is developer-supplied, published by one publisher group. It survives an internal cross-check: 2.9 of the masterplan’s 6 acres is 48.3% of the land holding 50.1% of the two phases’ 1,852 units. No GFA and no plot ratio is published by anyone, so no independent check exists

0 of 928units reach the RM2,000,000 Selangor Zone 1 foreign-buyer floor; the dearest filed unit is 43.3% of it (our own arithmetic). The scheme is strata, so the individual-title bar does not arise — and Sekatan Kepentingan cannot be read at all on this project, because the single filed advertisement is an image-only scan

The facilities schedule — a text list with explicit level headings, which is unusually good, and it contradicts itself on Levels 6 and 7

Credit where it is due: this is a text schedule with stated level assignments, not a graphic. This series has repeatedly had to report that a developer publishes only a facilities image whose mapping is indeterminate. Here the podium is assigned to Level 8 on two independent surfaces. But two cautions travel with the list. First, the developer’s own microsite prints “Management Office” against BOTH Level 1 and Levels 6 & 7, while the publisher’s listing instead puts a co-working lounge on Levels 6 and 7 — so the microsite contradicts itself and the two surfaces contradict each other. That is exactly why no image on this page carries a level number except the podium. Second, this is a MARKETING list and not a filed one: the one filed statutory advertisement for this scheme cannot be read, so no facility here is evidenced by a filed schedule, and that is why this page does not call the development gated and guarded — the only security item published anywhere is a Guardhouse.

Level 1 — arrival and services

Developer’s own list — marketing grade

Management Office (also printed against Levels 6 & 7 — see the caution above)
Kindergarten Room
EV Charging Bays
Carwash Bay
Parcel / Mailbox Room
Guardhouse (the only security item published by anybody)

Levels 6 & 7 — contradicted

Two surfaces disagree — both printed here

Developer’s microsite: Management Office
Publisher’s listing: a co-working lounge on Levels 6 and 7
Neither is treated as settled on this page. The developer also puts a Management Office on Level 1, so its own schedule is inconsistent with itself

Level 8 — “Serenity Oasis”

Developer’s own list — marketing grade

50 m Swimming Pool
Water Cascade
Wading Pool
Leisure Pool
Spa Pool
Hydrotherapy Spa Bed
Mist Enclave
Aqua Serene Enclave
Wet Deck
Sun Deck
Outdoor Shower
Sauna Room
Male / Female Changing Room

Level 8 — “Tranquil Oasis”

Developer’s own list — marketing grade

Feast Garden (BBQ Deck)
Vertical Herb Garden
Calisthenics Garden
Aromatic Garden
Pre-function Garden
Yoga Garden
Jogging Path
Reflexology Path
Social Area
Ivory Pavilion
Outdoor Study Lounge
Outdoor Lounge
Outdoor Fitness
Chill Out Garden

Level 8 — “Vitality Oasis”

Developer’s own list — marketing grade

Pickleball Court
Badminton Court / Multipurpose Hall
Communal Kitchen
Mini Theatre
E-sports Room
Gymnasium
Playground
Surau
Convenience Store Space — “Space” is the developer’s own word, and it means shell space: no document states whether it is strata, whether it is for sale, or what its status under the Housing Development Act is. It is in NO KPKT registration, so it is unregistered

What the level structure implies — and what no source states

Reading, not a filed fact

The facilities deck sits at Level 8 and the towers are 44 storeys, which implies Levels 1 to 7 are podium — parking and services — with the residential floors beginning above the deck.
No source states this project’s first residential floor, its floor numbering, or whether a 4 or a 13 is skipped.
No car-park provision is published by anybody, per unit or in total. It is one of the documents to ask for in writing.
No square footage is published for the podium or for any landscaped area, and if one surfaces later it is a greenery figure and not a parcel area.
No source says whether the two SCP phases at USJ 1 share facilities, a linkbridge, or any infrastructure. Nothing is assumed here in either direction.

Timeline — every dated event, with the governing date marked and the superseded one marked too

2011the group’s property development division “began full-scale operation in early 2011”, per its own company profile — which on the same page claims “40 years of experience” for its founders and directors. Both statements are carried here, because they describe different things

28 Oct 2019The Edge Malaysia reports the six-acre freehold USJ parcel near Da Men Mall as three residential blocks, one serviced residence block and limited shops, with a whole-site GDV of RM800 million. Four blocks now exist across the two phases — the block count matches. The “limited shops” are in NO KPKT registration on either licence, and this page records the absence rather than asserting they were dropped. Carry the RM800m figure only with its 2019 date: it is a whole-site, launch-era number and not this project’s GDV

24 Mar 2026developer licence 31334/03-2031/0081(N) issued to KIARA SQUARE SDN. BHD. — (N) = first issue, with Rekod Lesen Terdahulu EMPTY and jumlahProjek: 1. The licence pre-dates the first sale by 108 days (our own arithmetic on two filed dates)

2 Jul 2026advertising and sales permit 31334-1/07-2029/0488(N)-(S) issued, valid to 1 July 2029. Permit history EMPTY, so this is the first and only permit the scheme has ever held and an unpermitted interval is impossible by construction. It pre-dates the first sale and purchase agreement by 8 days — thin, and the right side of the line

6 – 10 Jul 2026the content-management dates on every render used on this page, all of them filed in the developer’s own July 2026 upload folder. After the permit, days before the launch — so no image on this page predates the registration

10 Jul 2026first sale and purchase agreement (tarikhPjbPertama). With tempohAsal: 36 Bulan this fixed original contractual vacant possession at 10 July 2029

Jul 2026launched, per the publisher’s sponsored article, which also claims a “50% take-up rate”. UNVERIFIABLE: the register carries no Baki Unit field on this record and nothing else publishes unsold stock

≈ Aug 2026the 20-month extension of time is on the record — pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 20 Bulan. The register does not publish the approval date; what it publishes is that the extension exists and that the new period is 56 months. At 13 October 2026 the build is at 0.00%, so it was approved before construction began

10 Sep 2026Tarikh Kemaskini on LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price project list, which carries Residensi Damaisari 2 · Kiara Square Sdn Bhd · Daerah Petaling · Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan · RM270,000. This is the document that both confirms the controlled price and supplies the district the federal register leaves blank

13 Oct 2026the research date for this page. Register read: 0.00% / 0.00%, ccc and vp both -, status.keseluruhan: Lancar, not flagged Lewat, licence current, permit current

1 Jul 2029the advertising and sales permit expires. It will have to be renewed to continue advertising and selling beyond that date, which is about 20 months before the governing completion date

10 Jul 2029the ORIGINAL contractual vacant possession date — SUPERSEDED. 36 months from the first sale and purchase agreement. This date appears in NO filing, NO developer surface and NO portal record. The KPKT register is the only place it exists

“target of 2030”a marketing aspiration, not a contractual commitment. The publisher’s sponsored article says the project is “scheduled for March 2031, with a target of 2030”. A developer target AHEAD of its own contractual date is the opposite of this series’ usual finding — but it is not a promise and must not be read as one

10 Mar 2031THE GOVERNING CONTRACTUAL VACANT POSSESSION DATE — serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama, 56 months from the first sale and purchase agreement. And the developer publishes it: its own statutory panel, its microsite and all three publisher records print “March 2031”. Credit that. Remember the Schedule H mechanic: your own 56 months run from YOUR agreement date

23 Mar 2031the developer licence expires — 13 days AFTER the governing completion date (our own arithmetic on two filed dates). The comfortable configuration, and a thin margin worth naming: if delivery slips by more than two weeks the licence needs renewing before handover

Ask Louis what the register says today

Layouts, as filed and as marketed

Four unit types, 928 units — and not one built-up figure on this page comes from a filed schedule

Read this before any size figure below. The single filed statutory advertisement for this scheme is an image-only scan with no text layer, the second brochure file and the newspaper advertisement file both return errors, and the register exposes no built-up field. So the filed built-up schedule CANNOT BE READ, and every size in circulation for this project is a MARKETING figure. What the register does give is the unit mix — A 140 · B 428 · C 216 · D 144 = 928, closing against components of 464 + 464 — and the bedroom and bathroom RANGES, bilik: 1, 3, 4 and bilik air: 1, 2, 3, which establish that there is no two-bedroom type in the building but do not assign a count to a type. And the headline fact of this section: the marketed range of 768 to 1,008 sq ft leaves out 140 units, 15.1% of the building.

SCP Westfield Residences, USJ 1 Subang Jaya — Type A layout plan

Type A — 140 units, the state-controlled allocation

140 of 928 units · 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom on the register’s own ranges · the RM270,000 Selangor state-controlled affordable price attaches to this type · absent from every marketed size range

140 units15.1% of the buildingLPHS controlled priceRestricted stockNo built-up publishedRegister ranges onlyNot in the 768–1,008 range

No built-up figure for Type A is published by any source, and this page prints none against the drawing. The only surface that prints 550 sq ft at all is the group’s project page, which lists four sizes with no type labels. Our reading that the smallest of those four belongs to Type A is an INFERENCE — from the ordering of that list, from the register’s bedroom range requiring a one-bedroom type, and from Type A being the 140-unit affordable allocation. It is probable; it is not filed, and this page will not promote it into a specification. What IS established: the statutory minimum price of RM270,000 attaches to this allocation, and LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price list of 10 September 2026 names the scheme, the licensee, the district and that figure in one row. So these 140 units are restricted stock with eligibility conditions administered by LPHS — income, first-home and registration conditions that NO source reached states. They are not open-market stock, the RM270,000 is not an entry price for a general buyer, and this page never writes “from RM270,000”. Ask for the LPHS eligibility terms in writing before anything else.

Ask about the LPHS Type A eligibility terms

SCP Westfield Residences, USJ 1 Subang Jaya — Type B layout plan

Type B — 428 units, the volume type

428 of 928 units — 46.1% of the building · marketed built-up 768 sq ft · 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms · marketed starting price from RM636,000

428 units768 sq ft (marketed)3 bed2 bathFrom RM636,000 (marketed)Above the filed minimumThe only fully-printed type

Type B is the only type for which any one source prints the built-up, the bedrooms and the bathrooms together as a set — the publisher’s listing panel gives 768 sq ft, 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The register corroborates the ranges and not the assignment: bilik: 1, 3, 4 permits a three-bedroom type and forbids a two-bedroom one. The marketed starting price of RM636,000 sits ABOVE the filed statutory minimum and inside the filed maximum of RM866,000, which is the normal and honest case — and worth saying, because this series has caught developer panels advertising below their own filed statutory floor on five other projects. Nothing below the floor exists anywhere on this project. What is not published for this or any type: the car-park allocation, the balcony or yard area, any accessory parcel, and which of the two towers and which floors it sits on.

Ask for the Type B plan and the price list

SCP Westfield Residences, USJ 1 Subang Jaya — Type C layout plan

Type C — 216 units, three bedrooms plus a study

216 of 928 units · marketed built-up 868 sq ft · 3 bedrooms + study, 2 bathrooms as marketed · marketed starting price from RM700,000

216 units868 sq ft (marketed)3 bed + study2 bathFrom RM700,000 (marketed)Publisher table onlyAbove the filed minimum

The built-up, the bedroom count and the starting price for Type C come from one table in the publisher’s SPONSORED article, and this page labels that origin every time it uses it. The “+ study” is a marketing description: the register’s own ranges count bedrooms, not study rooms, and the filed schedule cannot be read. The RM700,000 starting price sits above the filed statutory minimum and below the filed maximum. No source states which type reaches the RM866,000 filed maximum, so this page does not guess: the maximum is a scheme-wide figure and nothing more. The drawing beside this entry carries the weaker of the two image grades used on this page — see the note under the gallery below.

Ask for the Type C plan and the price list

SCP Westfield Residences, USJ 1 Subang Jaya — Type D layout plan

Type D — 144 units, the largest marketed type

144 of 928 units · marketed built-up 1,008 sq ft · 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms as marketed · marketed starting price from RM797,000

144 units1,008 sq ft (marketed)4 bed3 bathFrom RM797,000 (marketed)Top of the register rangesAbove the filed minimum

Type D is the only type whose marketed bedroom and bathroom counts sit at the TOP of the register’s own ranges — bilik: 1, 3, 4 and bilik air: 1, 2, 3 — which is a genuine corroboration of the 4-bed, 3-bath description even though the per-type schedule itself cannot be read. The marketed starting price of RM797,000 is RM69,000 below the filed statutory maximum (our own arithmetic), so the top of the filed range is plausibly a higher-floor or larger Type D — but no source says so and this page does not assert it. What no source publishes for any type: the filed built-up, the filed bed and bath schedule, the car park, the accessory parcel, the fixture schedule and the tower assignment.

Ask for the Type D plan and the price list

The grade of the four drawings above, stated plainly, because it is one step weaker than the renders further down this page. All four come from the project’s own single-project image library, and the library’s own title for each one confirms the TYPE CODE — type-a to type-d — but does NOT name the project. Their identification as this project’s plans therefore rests on their placement in a single-project library that passed a sibling-contamination test (a targeted search for the neighbouring scheme’s brand returned an empty result against a same-endpoint positive control that returned 22 real project-named items, and a full library sweep found nothing but site chrome). That is legitimate here and it is weaker than a title that names the project, so this page says so rather than leaving you to assume. Two further filename-level findings worth carrying. Types B and C exist in a later revised generation and Types A and D do not — which is evidence that B and C were revised at some point and A and D were not, so the four drawings should not be read as one generation. And the Type A drawing carries no area figure on this page at all, for the reason given in its own entry: no text source states Type A’s built-up. What to ask for in writing: the filed built-up schedule, the filed bedroom and bathroom schedule, the car-park provision per type, the accessory-parcel position, and the tower and floor assignment — none of which any source publishes, and all of which exist on documents the developer holds.

Published imagery, graded — and every item is a render of an unbuilt building

Developer imagery — eleven renders from a library that passed the contamination test, and 0.00% of it is built

SCP Westfield Residences, USJ 1 Subang Jaya — entrance guardhouse (artist's impression) — **Entrance guardhouse (artist’s impression).** **Subject confirmed** from the developer’s own content-management title, which names both the project and the subject. **The guardhouse is also the ONLY security item published anywhere for this scheme** — which is why this page never calls the development gated and guarded: **the one filed statutory advertisement cannot be read, so no security provision is evidenced by a filed schedule.**

SCP Westfield Residences, USJ 1 Subang Jaya — the landscaped facilities podium (artist's impression) — **The Level 8 facilities podium, per the developer’s own facilities schedule (artist’s impression).** **Subject confirmed** from the content-management title, and **this is the ONLY image on this page that carries a level number** — because Level 8 for the podium is stated on two independent surfaces. **The developer’s own schedule contradicts itself on Levels 6 and 7, so no other image here is given a level.**

SCP Westfield Residences, USJ 1 Subang Jaya — the Feast Garden barbecue deck (artist's impression) — **The Feast Garden barbecue deck (artist’s impression).** **Subject confirmed** from the content-management title. **No level number is attached** — the developer’s schedule puts this zone on Level 8, but the same schedule contradicts itself elsewhere, so this page states the subject and not the floor. **A render: 0.00% built at 13 October 2026.**

SCP Westfield Residences, USJ 1 Subang Jaya — pickleball court (artist's impression) — **Pickleball court (artist’s impression).** **Subject confirmed** from the content-management title. **No level number is attached as fact.** **A render of a court that does not yet exist** — the register reports both towers at `peratus: 0.00`.

SCP Westfield Residences, USJ 1 Subang Jaya — gymnasium (artist's impression) — **Gymnasium (artist’s impression).** **Subject confirmed** from the content-management title. The developer’s own schedule calls it a “state of the art” gymnasium; **this page uses the plain word, because a superlative is not a specification.** **No level number is attached as fact.**

SCP Westfield Residences, USJ 1 Subang Jaya — mini theatre (artist's impression) — **Mini theatre (artist’s impression).** **Subject confirmed** from the content-management title. **No level number is attached as fact.** **A render, not a photograph.**

SCP Westfield Residences, USJ 1 Subang Jaya — co-working lounge (artist's impression) — **Co-working lounge (artist’s impression).** **Subject confirmed** from the content-management title. **And this is the item the two published surfaces disagree about:** the developer’s microsite puts a Management Office on Levels 6 and 7, while the publisher’s listing puts a co-working lounge there. **Both readings are printed on this page and neither is treated as settled — so no level is attached to this image.**

SCP Westfield Residences, USJ 1 Subang Jaya — communal kitchen (artist's impression) — **Communal Kitchen (artist’s impression).** **Subject confirmed** from the content-management title, which is the developer’s own wording. **No level number is attached as fact.** **A render of a facility in a building that is 0.00% built.**

What these images are, and the test that lets this page carry them. Every image on this page is an ARTIST’S IMPRESSION of a building that the KPKT register reports as 0.00% built on both towers at 13 October 2026. None of them is a photograph of anything that exists, and every caption says so. They are the developer’s own, taken from its project microsite’s open content-management library, read in full on 13 October 2026. Eleven reach the stronger grade, because this library’s own title names BOTH the project and the subject — the strongest grade this series awards. The four layout drawings above reach a weaker grade, because their titles confirm the type code and not the project, and that is stated under them. Alt text is EMPTY on every single item on the source host, so the grade rests on the title and nothing else — and none of this developer’s own alt text was copied, for a specific reason: on the group’s own site, one Westfield image carries the Open Graph alt text Mosaic 2, which is the SIBLING phase’s internal brand. And the test that matters here more than on any project in this series. The sibling phase sits 211 metres away with two near-identical 44-storey towers under a different licensee, so the real risk was a library quietly carrying the building next door. We ran the contamination test: targeted searches for the sibling’s brand and for another of the group’s developments both returned EMPTY arrays, against a same-endpoint positive control that returned 22 real project-named items, and a full date-ascending sweep returned 23 further items that were every one site chrome — icons, placeholders, a menu logo, form backgrounds. Not one item named another development. 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, and it is only the third this series has found. What was refused, and why: an earlier generation of the aerial render, because it is a superseded version of the one at the top of this page and the two must never appear together; three group-site images whose titles confirm the project but establish no subject, one of which is the item carrying the Mosaic 2 alt text; the logos; the site chrome; three landing videos and the audio file; the e-brochure PDF, which the host does not serve; a 360-tour link, which is a tour and not an image; and every asset on the sibling phase’s own website, without exception. Dates were checked, not assumed: every render carries a content-management date of 6 to 10 July 2026 — after the 2 July 2026 advertising permit and days before the launch — so no image here is a render of an earlier, re-planned scheme. A folder path is not an upload date, and on the group’s own site files served from a 2021 folder carry content-management dates of July 2026, which is exactly why the date field is read and the folder ignored.

Ask Louis for the developer e-brochure

Location

USJ 1, 47600 Subang Jaya — Daerah Petaling, under Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya

Read this before the map, because three separate location errors are in circulation and one of them is the publisher’s own. The filed coordinates are 3.058651, 101.595667, from the KPKT register. The local authority is Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya, settled from the filed approved building-plan reference MBSJ.BGN.BP1.600-1/10/5/11(22) on the developer’s own statutory panel — the plan prefix, which is the only route this page treats as strong — and corroborated by the Approving Authority field on the same panel. The district is Daerah Petaling, and the KPKT register does NOT give it: daerah is a bare -. It comes instead from LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price list of 10 September 2026, which files this scheme under Petaling — a state government document supplying the field the federal register leaves blank. The mukim is absent from the register entirely, absent from the panel and absent from every portal, and it is not estimated here. Error one: a major portal files this Subang Jaya project in SHAH ALAM. Its own canonical URL puts the project under selangor/shah_alam/ and its meta description says “Shah Alam, Selangor” — against its own location block and its own statutory panel on the same page, both of which say USJ 1, Subang Jaya and Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya. Both places sit in Selangor Zone 1, so the foreign-buyer floor is unaffected — but the council, the assessment rates and the client’s own searches are not. This page is filed under Subang Jaya and not Shah Alam. Error two, and it is a trap rather than a mistake: the only address the developer prints in its own footer is a sales office inside a shopping mall on Persiaran Kewajipan — not the site, not the licensee’s registered office in Bangsar South, and not its business address in Petaling Jaya. Four addresses are in circulation for this one company and only one of them is the building. Error three: the two phases’ postcodes disagree. The portal gives 47600 for this phase and 47500 for the sibling 211 metres away. One of them is wrong and no source resolves it. And a trap this page refuses to walk into: MPSJ and MBSJ are ONE council renamed in 2020. The sibling phase’s filed plan reference still reads MPSJ because its building plan was approved before the city-council upgrade; this one reads MBSJ because it was approved after. A reader seeing two prefixes across two phases of one masterplan must not conclude two authorities.

Open in Google Maps

Filed coordinates 3.058651, 101.595667 — KPKT register, project 31334-1Local authority Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya — settled from the plan prefix MBSJ.BGN.BP1.600-1/10/5/11(22)District Daerah Petaling — not filed in the KPKT register, supplied by LPHS Selangor’s own list of 10 Sep 2026Mukim: NOT PUBLISHED by anyone — and not estimated hereSelangor Zone 1 — foreign-buyer floor RM2,000,000, double the Kuala Lumpur figureThe site addresses place the parcel in the Subang light-industrial area off Jalan Subang 1; no source states the former use of the land and none is inferredThe sibling phase files 3.060546, 101.595669 — about 211 m north (our own arithmetic on two filed coordinate pairs)

The filed coordinates sit between Persiaran Subang Permai and Jalan Subang 1, inside the USJ 1 light-industrial area and a short way from Da Men Mall, which is consistent with every site address in circulation and with a brownfield parcel. The sales office is NOT at the coordinates — it is the mall unit the developer prints in its footer.

What the developer publishes, and the four things wrong with it

The developer publishes about SEVENTY distances across six category pop-ups on its own microsite plus a transit block — the most of any project in this series. Every figure below is the developer’s own, and the origin is attached to it every time.
Fault one: the method is nowhere stated. Not one figure says whether it is straight-line, driving or walking, or measured to which entrance. So the figures are published here as the developer’s figures, with the basis undefined.
Fault two: three different destinations are all exactly “400m” — two international schools and a private hospital — while a university in the same campus cluster as that hospital is given as 2.1 km and another as 2.6 km. Those cannot all be measured the same way. This page names the inconsistency and does not pick a side or re-measure.
Fault three: the bus-rapid-transit stop counts contradict each other across the developer’s own two surfaces. The microsite gives a school at 2.1 km = 3 BRT stops; the publisher’s panel gives a university at 2.1 km = 1 stop by BRT. And the microsite gives the hospital as 400 m AND 2 BRT stops, which cannot both be true. Both readings are printed; neither is resolved.
Fault four, and it is the figure buyers care most about: the rail answer is the weakest thing the developer publishes. The only rail item it names is “Interchange LRT Kelana Jaya Line” — with NO station name and NO distance. The BRT station the project markets itself by is named in SPONSORED editorial only, which claims a 180 m covered walkway to the South Quay–USJ 1 BRT station, interchanging with the Kelana Jaya LRT line at USJ 7. The developer’s own seventy-row distance tables give NO figure for any rail or BRT station at all, and no source states what the 180 m is measured between. This page does not write “walking distance to the LRT” as a fact.
And the rule this page applies to all of it: if nothing publishes a figure, this page publishes no figure. Nothing here is estimated, converted, rounded or read across from another project — and three other pages on this site publish distance tables from parcels 2 to 8 km away, which would be fabrication by substitution and is the most tempting error available. Note in passing that another developer’s own table puts one of the same malls at 8 km while this developer puts it at 550 m: a systematic disagreement between two developments’ tables is EVIDENCE of two different sites, not an error.

The developer’s own figures, verbatim — education, shopping, healthcare

Education, developer’s own figures: Pine Hills International School 400m · Sunway International School 400m · SK Seafield 1.1km · SEGi College 1.2km · Oakbridge International School 1.4km · SK Sri Subang Jaya 1.6km · SMK Seafield 1.7km · SK USJ 2 1.7km · SJK(C) Chee Wen 1.8km · SK Sri UCSI 2.1km · Monash University 2.1km · UCSI International School 2.1km · Sunway University 2.6km · INTI 2.6km · HIS International School 2.7km · Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus 3.9km · Fairview International School 4.3km · The One Academy 5.0km · Sri KDU 5.5km · Sri Emas 5.6km
Shopping, developer’s own figures: Mydin Hypermarket 30m · Giant Hypermarket 30m · Easyhome 500m · Jaya Grocer (Easyhome) 500m · NSK Grocer (Summit USJ) 550m · Summit USJ 550m · Taipan Business Centre 2.0km · Village Grocer, Subang Parade 3.9km · AEON Big Subang Jaya 3.9km · Subang Parade 3.9km · Nu Empire 4.0km · Main Place Mall 4.5km · Paradigm Mall 9.9km
Healthcare, developer’s own figures: Sunway Medical Centre 400m (and see fault two and fault three above) · BIG Pharmacy 500m · CARiNG Pharmacy 550m · OSC Orthopaedic Specialist Centre 600m · Watsons 600m · Guardian 650m · AA Pharmacy SS15 2.8km · Subang Jaya Medical Centre 2.9km · Subang Eye Specialist Centre 3.3km · Columbia Asia Hospital 9.5km
Recreation, developer’s own figures: Royal Thai Botanical Therapy 300m · Millennium Park 2.1km · Ayu Borneo 2.9km · HealthLand 3.1km · Sunway Lagoon 3.4km · Subang Ria Recreational Park 3.8km · Glenmarie Golf & Country Club 8.3km · Subang National Golf Club 8.9km · Taman Rekreasi Putra Heights 9.0km · Saujana Golf & Country Club 12.9km
Banking, developer’s own figures: Bank Muamalat 350m · AmBank USJ Sentral 350m · UOB 2.0km · RHB 2.1km · Public Bank 2.1km · Hong Leong 2.1km · Alliance 2.2km · Bank Islam 2.3km · RHB Subang Jaya 2.6km · Affin 2.8km · Maybank 2.8km
Home improvement, developer’s own figures: Mr DIY 350m · AIO Home 400m · Home Pro 600m · Ace Hardware 650m · HLK Chain Store 1.9km · OnKing 1.9km · ESH 4.1km
Transit, developer’s own figures, with the contradictions intact: Interchange LRT Kelana Jaya Line — NO DISTANCE GIVEN and NO STATION NAMED · Sunway Medical Centre 400m, 2 BRT stops · UCSI International School 2.1km, 3 BRT stops · Sunway Pyramid 3.3km, 3 BRT stops · Sunway Lagoon 3.4km, 3 BRT stops. The publisher’s panel adds Monash University at “1 stop by BRT” over the same 2.1 km and Taylor’s Lakeside at “2 stops” over 3.9 km. Ask for a measured walking route to the station in writing, and ask what it is measured from.

Ask for a drive time rather than accept one. Every figure in the lists above is the developer’s own, reproduced with that attribution and with the basis undefined, because the developer does not state it. Nothing on this page is measured, converted or estimated by us, and nothing is read across from another project — including the three other Subang-area pages on this site, which cover different parcels 2 to 8 km away. The one figure a buyer should treat with the most care is the 180 m walkway to the BRT station: it appears in sponsored editorial and nowhere else, the developer’s own tables give no station distance at all, and the 2019 press report described such a walkway only as planned. Verify any figure that matters to you on the ground, at the hour you would actually travel.

Investment & own-stay highlights

SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1, Subang Jaya, Selangor: latest prices, layouts and availability

Message me on WhatsApp for the latest price list and available units, full floor plans and the e-brochure, a rental estimate and loan calculation, or a show-unit viewing.

Get the latest details on WhatsApp

The licensed developer

KIARA SQUARE SDN. BHD. — a Subang Jaya building licensed to a company named after a Mont Kiara word

Your counterparty is KIARA SQUARE SDN. BHD., registration 201801038393 (1300424-H), KPKT developer code 31334, holding licence 31334/03-2031/0081(N) valid 24 March 2026 to 23 March 2031. The register prints no company registration number at all; the number above comes from the developer’s OWN statutory advertising and sales permit panel, which is the surface the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations require it on, so it is a filed published fact and not a portal harvest. The register’s own reading of the company is clean on every flag it carries: statusPemaju: Aktif, mempunyaiKesalahan: null, projek_sakit_count: 0, projek_terbengkalai_count: 0, jumlahProjek: 1 and an EMPTY Rekod Lesen Terdahulu. A licence seven months old carrying exactly one registered project with no previous licence record describes a single-purpose vehicle, and the register’s business address, e-mail domain and telephone number place it inside the SCP group.

Now the naming, because it will defeat a client’s own search in three different ways. One: the company is named after a different project of the group’s, in a different district. The group’s visible convention is to name a company after the locality it builds in, and both of its USJ 1 phases break that convention in the same way — the neighbouring phase’s licensee is named after the group’s 30-acre project in Balakong, and this one carries a Mont Kiara word for a Subang Jaya building. A client searching the company name would land on Mont Kiara. Two: the registered project name shares nothing with the marketing name. The scheme is registered RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2 — the neighbouring phase’s registered brand with a numeral appended — while it is sold as SCP Westfield Residences; the developer’s own Open Graph image alt text calls it Mosaic 2; and its own project navigation lists Damaisari and Mosaic 1 as the neighbours. Three parallel naming systems across two phases, and the public name belongs to none of them. Three, and this is the measured part: we ran eight search strings against the public register of licensed developers. The brand returns four companies and the licensee is NOT among them. The marketing name returns zero. The masterplan brand returns zero. The REGISTERED NAME returns zero. The town returns four and the licensee is not among them. Only the licensee’s own first name word finds it, as the eleventh of twenty-two results — against a same-session positive control on an unrelated developer that returned sixteen. So tell a client to search the developer code 31334, the project code 31334-1, the licence number or the registered name, and to expect “Westfield” to return nothing.

The group, and what is not obtainable because of what it is. SCP Group / SCP Property is a brand: no legal entity name and no registration number for the group itself is published on any of its four websites, each of which was read separately. And the group is PRIVATE — there is no listed parent at all. That closes three of this page’s standard corroboration routes outright: no Bursa announcement can exist, no annual report exists, and no investor-relations host exists. The consequences are specific and they are stated rather than left as silence: the main contractor, the contract sum and the construction commencement date are published by NOBODY, so the float test — does the construction programme fit the contractual completion date? — CANNOT be run in either direction, and the elapsed-versus-built reading in the register section is the only test available. The shareholding of the licensee, the identity of its holding company and the name of any land vendor are equally unobtainable, and no joint-venture partner is named by any source. And note the inversion, which this series has now seen twice: the ARCHITECT is published — KSKA Arkitek Sdn Bhd, with LUXE Interior Sdn Bhd as interior designer, both named in the publisher’s sponsored article — while the CONTRACTOR is not.

Four addresses are in circulation for one company, and only one of them is the building. The licensee’s registered office is in a serviced-office tower in Bangsar South, Kuala Lumpur; its business address is in Phileo Damansara 1, Petaling Jaya; the project site is on Persiaran Subang Permai off Jalan Subang 1 in the USJ 1 light-industrial area; and the only address the developer prints in its own website footer is a SALES OFFICE inside a shopping mall on Persiaran Kewajipan. A page or a portal that scrapes a developer footer gets the mall, not the development — and this is the third distinct form of that trap this series has logged. One correction worth printing while we are here: the Bangsar South tower in the licensee’s registered-office field is a mass-market serviced-office address used by unrelated companies, and it is NOT the fingerprint of the listed developer whose own tower stands in the same development. There is no connection between the two and none should be read.

What the developer says about itself, and what can be tested. Its company profile claims “yearly sales of RM500 millions” — UNTESTABLE, because the group is private: there are no audited accounts, no Bursa filing and no annual report to read it against. It claims “40 years of experience”, which on the same page is attributed to its founders and directors, while the property development division is dated to 2011; both statements are carried here because they describe different things. It claims that all its completed projects are handed over within the scheduled time frame or earlier — which is tested field by field in the register section above, and the answer is four of four against governing dates, three of four against original ones. It does NOT claim low density, which is the correct behaviour at 320 units per acre and is credited. It does NOT claim to be award-winning, which is also correct, because the only award on any of its surfaces is a workplace award to the employer. And its own marketing disclaimer is the right one: renderings and show units are illustrative only and not contractual, and the sale and purchase agreement governs. That disclaimer sits on the same pop-up layer as its statutory panel, and it is the correct statement of the position.

And the credit this page owes the developer’s own statutory panel, which is unusual enough to be worth a paragraph of its own. The advertising and sales permit pop-up on the project microsite is correct on EVERY field that can be cross-checked against the register — the licence number and its validity, the permit number and its validity, the registered project name, the approving authority, the approved building-plan reference, the tenure, the chargee, the unit total, the type split, the storey count, the price range and the completion date — and it prints the registered name rather than hiding behind the marketing name, plus a company registration number the register itself does not carry. So the entire family of developer-data-strip faults this series keeps finding cannot arise on this project: no stale price generation, no fabricated validity year, no advertising permit validity printed in the licence field, no below-floor price table, no agency licence printed where a developer permit belongs. This is the second time in this series that a developer’s statutory panel has simply been right. Its one gap is Sekatan Kepentingan, which it omits entirely, and its one editorial fault is on the group site rather than the project site: an image there carries the neighbouring phase’s internal brand as its alt text.

Sources for this section: the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register licensee record for developer code 31334 and the project record 31334-1, both read 13 October 2026; the six other registrations in this developer’s licence family, walked individually; the developer’s own statutory advertising and sales permit panel and marketing disclaimer on its project microsite, read separately from the group’s project page and company profile; three record forms from one publisher, one of which is SPONSORED content and is labelled as such at every use; and a report in The Edge Malaysia dated 28 October 2019. Eight search strings were run against the public developer register and seven of the eight missed the licensee entirely; the measured result is printed above rather than summarised. Nothing in this section is taken from the neighbouring SCP phase’s record except where it is explicitly labelled as that phase’s, and no figure of its has been used as this project’s.

Questions people actually ask

SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1 — the questions, answered from the filed record

Is this the same project as SCP Mosaic at USJ 1? They look identical.

No. They are two separate registrations, two separate companies and two separate buildings about 211 metres apart, and their REGISTERED names differ by a single character. Here is the comparison, from both register records read on 13 October 2026.

Field	SCP Westfield Residences (this page)	SCP Mosaic (the neighbour)
Registered name	`RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2`	`RESIDENSI DAMAISARI`
Licensee	KIARA SQUARE SDN. BHD. `201801038393 (1300424-H)`	CHERAS TRADERS SQUARE SDN. BHD. `201401001409 (1077482-X)`
Developer code / project	`31334` / `31334-1`	`31004` / `31004-1`
Units	928 (A 140 · B 428 · C 216 · D 144)	924, in seven types
Towers × storeys	2 × 44	2 × 44
Filed statutory price range	RM270,000 – RM866,000	RM270,000 – RM1,271,000 (register, one block)
Extension of time	`Ya`, +20 months	`Ya`, +12 months
Contractual completion	10 Jul 2029 → revised 10 Mar 2031	7 Jul 2028 → revised 7 Jul 2029
Build progress, 13 Oct 2026	0.00% / 0.00%	25.04% / 24.34%
Approved building plan	`MBSJ`.BGN.BP1.600-1/10/5/11(22)	`MPSJ`.BGN.BP1.600-1/10/5/3(37)

Swipe sideways to see the full table →

The two plan prefixes are ONE council under two names — Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya became Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya in 2020 — so the difference dates the two approvals and does not mean two authorities. Nothing else crosses between the two phases on this page: no price, no size, no floor plan, no image, no facility and no completion date. When anyone quotes you a figure for “the SCP project at USJ 1”, ask which register code it belongs to.

When will SCP Westfield Residences actually be completed?

The governing contractual date is 10 March 2031, and the developer publishes it. That is serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama in the KPKT register: 56 months from the first sale and purchase agreement of 10 July 2026. What no public source says is that the original contractual date was 10 July 2029, on a 36-month Schedule H period, and that a 20-month extension of time was approved — while the register still reports 0.00% built on both towers. Three cautions. First, under Schedule H the delivery period runs from YOUR OWN agreement date — 10 March 2031 is 56 months from the first purchaser’s, so a 2027 buyer’s own date is later. Get it in writing, computed from your own signature. Second, a sponsored article says the project is “scheduled for March 2031, with a target of 2030”. The 2030 figure is an aspiration and not a contractual commitment. Third, this page makes no prediction: about 95 days, or roughly 5.6%, of the revised programme had elapsed at the research date, the register reads Lancar, and the late flag Lewat is NOT set.

Why does the KPKT register show a different name? I searched “Westfield” and found nothing.

That is the expected result, not a warning sign. The registered scheme name is RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2, and “Westfield” appears in no register record, no statutory filing field and no government document. It exists as the marketing name on the developer’s own panel, as the project’s web domain, and in one publisher’s records. The register’s search works on DEVELOPER names, not project names, so even searching the registered name returns nothing. Search instead: developer code 31334, project code 31334-1, licence 31334/03-2031/0081(N), or the name Residensi Damaisari 2. One more layer, because the developer itself runs three naming systems: its own image alt text calls this project Mosaic 2, its own navigation calls the neighbour Mosaic 1, and the register calls them Residensi Damaisari 2 and Residensi Damaisari. Insist on a register code on every document you are shown.

Do prices start at RM270,000?

No, and this is the single easiest thing to misread about this project. RM270,000 is the filed statutory MINIMUM for the scheme, and it is a Selangor STATE-CONTROLLED affordable price attaching to the 140 Type A units. LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price project list, updated 10 September 2026, carries the row: Residensi Damaisari 2 · Kiara Square Sdn Bhd · Daerah Petaling · Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan · RM270,000. So it is restricted stock with eligibility conditions administered by LPHS — income, first-home and registration conditions that NO source reached publishes — and it is not an open-market entry price. The filed statutory range for the scheme is RM270,000 to RM866,000, carried identically to the sen by the register’s two components and by the developer’s own statutory panel. The marketed starting prices for the open-market types are, per one publisher: Type B from RM636,000, Type C from RM700,000 and Type D from RM797,000 — all above the filed minimum and inside the filed maximum. None of this is a price list, a quotation or an offer: the price list and the statutory sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery are the only authority on what you would pay.

What is the smallest unit in the building?

About 550 square feet — and no marketing surface for this project tells you that. Every brochure and portal gives the size range as 768 to 1,008 sq ft, which excludes the 140 Type A units entirely: 15.1% of the building, more than one unit in seven. The filed unit mix is A 140 · B 428 · C 216 · D 144 = 928, which closes against the register’s two 464-unit components. The only surface that prints 550 sq ft at all prints four sizes with no type labels, so our reading that the smallest belongs to Type A is an INFERENCE from that list, from the register’s bedroom range bilik: 1, 3, 4 and from Type A being the 140-unit affordable allocation. It is probable and it is not filed. And no filed figure can settle it: the one filed statutory advertisement for this scheme is an image-only scan with no text layer, so the filed built-up schedule cannot be read at all, and every size in circulation here is a marketing figure.

Can a foreigner buy here?

On price, no — and it is not close. Daerah Petaling sits in Selangor Zone 1, where the published minimum purchase price for a non-citizen is RM2,000,000, double the Kuala Lumpur figure. The highest price filed anywhere in this scheme is RM866,000, which is 43.3% of that floor, so ZERO of 928 units reach it (our own arithmetic on the filed maximum and the published floor). On title the news is better but incomplete. The scheme is Schedule H with an advertising permit tail of -(S), i.e. strata title, and Selangor permits foreign purchase of strata property in the main zones — so the individual-title bar that defeats a landed scheme does not arise here. But Sekatan Kepentingan CANNOT BE READ on this project, because the filed advertisement has no text layer and the developer’s own panel omits the line. This page does not say that no restriction is filed; it says the clause cannot be read. Have it read on the title search, and get the Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor position in writing before paying anything. Separately: the 140 Type A units are state-controlled affordable stock with LPHS eligibility conditions, which is a different bar and has nothing to do with nationality.

Is the project late?

No, and this page will not imply it. The register reads status.keseluruhan: Lancar — on track — and Lewat, the register’s own late flag, was looked for specifically and is NOT present. The governing contractual date is 10 March 2031, which is 4.4 years after the research date, and even the superseded original date of 10 July 2029 is 2.7 years away. What IS true, and is the point of this page, is that the contractual construction period was extended from 36 months to 56 before construction began. About 95 days, or roughly 5.6%, of the revised programme had elapsed at 13 October 2026, against 0.00% built on both towers (our own arithmetic on two filed dates). That is a position on a date, not a verdict, and no document anywhere gives a reason for the extension. Nor can the usual cross-check be run: no main contractor, no contract sum and no construction commencement date is published by anybody, so the question of whether the build programme fits the contractual date has no inputs.

Who is the developer, and is the project properly licensed?

The licensed developer is KIARA SQUARE SDN. BHD., registration 201801038393 (1300424-H), KPKT developer code 31334. Licence 31334/03-2031/0081(N), valid 24 March 2026 to 23 March 2031 — CURRENT. Advertising and sales permit 31334-1/07-2029/0488(N)-(S), valid 2 July 2026 to 1 July 2029 — CURRENT, with about 2 years 8½ months to run, and it covers 928 of 928 units. The register and the developer’s own statutory panel print both numbers and both validity periods IDENTICALLY, which is not something this page can say about most projects. The register’s flags on the company are clean: Aktif, mempunyaiKesalahan: null, zero sick projects, zero abandoned projects, one registered project and an EMPTY previous-licence record. Chronology in the right order: licence 24 March 2026, permit 2 July 2026, first sale 10 July 2026 — the licence pre-dates the first sale by 108 days and the permit by 8 days. Note that the company is named after a different project of the group’s in another district, so searching its name will mislead you; search the code.

The register shows the permit with an (N) suffix. Does that mean it is inactive?

We do not know, nobody publishes a key, and this page will not tell you the permit is inactive. What is certain: the permit number and its validity dates are printed identically by the register and by the developer’s own statutory panel, the register prints the scheme as Lancar and actively selling, and the developer is advertising under it. The reading we think most likely, recorded as a hypothesis rather than a finding: on a LICENCE number, (N) means first issue, never renewed — and the neighbouring phase’s record supports the same reading for a permit, because it carries its current permit as (A) while its own history carries the SAME permit number with (N) on the SAME dates. A (N) row superseded by an (A) row with an identical number and identical dates looks like first issue followed by re-issue, not like inactive followed by active. This project’s permit history is empty and the permit is 3½ months old, which fits that reading. Ask the developer to confirm the permit status in writing. It is a one-line answer and you are entitled to it.

Is SCP Westfield Residences green certified?

No certification of any kind is recorded for this project or for this licensee, and a green CLAIM is in circulation that is not a certification. What was checked: GreenRE’s certification register across all four tiers plus the Bronze certification-entry list, on nineteen separate search strings. No entry. Two limitations, stated: the Platinum tier reads completely, 95 rows closing cleanly, so a Platinum negative is a genuine clean negative; the Gold, Silver and Bronze tables truncate, so for those the honest statement is only “no entry in the reachable portion”, and the Bronze entry list covers April 2024 to December 2025 — the wrong window for a scheme licensed in 2026. The Green Building Index’s own public directory is unreachable, which is INCONCLUSIVE and never a negative. The claim itself: a SPONSORED article states that the development “follows Green Building Index standards” and names EV charging and heat-insulating materials. That is targeting, not certification — it asserts no application, no registration, no assessment and no rating level — and the developer’s own microsite does not make the claim at all. So this page does not describe the project as certified, and nothing is borrowed from any similarly-named scheme in the register.

How many car parks does a unit get?

Nobody publishes it. Not the register, which has no such field; not the developer’s statutory panel, which omits the line; not the microsite; not any portal record. And the one document that would normally carry it — the filed statutory advertisement — is an image-only scan with no text layer, so it cannot be read. The developer’s facilities list does publish EV charging bays, a carwash bay and a guardhouse on Level 1, which places parking in the podium below the Level 8 facilities deck, but a podium is not a parking ratio. Ask for the car-park provision per unit type in writing before you sign. On a 928-unit scheme it is a material term, and it will be in the developer’s own documents even though it is in none of its public ones.

Is it freehold, and what is the title position?

Freehold — Pegangan Kekal — on four surfaces, one of which is the developer’s own statutory panel, so no lease expiry arises. The land is charged to Malayan Banking Berhad, which the panel discloses as a Gadaian; that is ordinary development financing and the charge is discharged parcel by parcel on completion. What is NOT published: the lot or PT number, the land title reference and the mukim. And the clause that matters most to some buyers, Sekatan Kepentingan, CANNOT BE READ for this project — the filing has no text layer and the panel omits it. This page says cannot be read rather than none filed, because those are different statements and this series has already proved the cost of confusing them: on one licence, two phases read tidak boleh dipindah milik and boleh dipindah milik — one dropped word, opposite meanings. A title search settles it in a day and costs very little.

How big is the land, and how dense is the development?

928 units on 2.9 acres is 320.0 units per acre (our own arithmetic), which is in the upper quartile of the projects this series has measured. But read the denominator carefully: the land area is NOT filed. The KPKT register reads keluasan: 0 mps, so no parcel area is filed at all, and the 2.9 acres is a developer-supplied figure published by one publisher group. It does survive an internal cross-check: a 2019 press report described the whole parcel as six acres planned for four blocks, and four blocks now exist across the two phases; 2.9 of 6 acres is 48.3% of the land holding 50.1% of the two phases’ 1,852 units, which is internally consistent. What cannot be done is the independent check: no gross floor area and no plot ratio is published by anybody, so the acreage rests on that internal consistency and nothing stronger. And note what this page refuses to do: dividing 928 units by the whole six acres would give a flattering 154.7 per acre, which is wrong, because those six acres carry the neighbouring phase’s two towers as well. The developer makes no low-density claim anywhere, which is the correct behaviour and is credited.

Has this developer delivered on time before?

Mostly yes, and the honest answer has a qualification the developer’s own words do not. Its company profile says that all its completed projects are handed over “within the scheduled time frame or earlier”. We tested that against the register, which is the only place it can be tested, and no consumer source publishes any of it. Four registrations in this group’s licence family carry a completion certificate. Four of four were certified inside the date that legally bound the developer. Three of four ALSO beat the original date in the agreements purchasers first signed — by about 166 days with no extension at all, by about 52 days and by about 202 days while holding extensions that were never consumed. The fourth, a 681-unit Kuala Lumpur tower, missed its original date by about 136 days and needed a 17-month extension to be “on time”. And the sentence silently excludes one further record: a 350-unit scheme that reached 82.27% with its advertising permit marked Telah Dibatalkan, a component status of Sakit, and no completion certificate. With attribution and no causal claim: The Edge Malaysia reported in October 2019 that the group bought back that building’s units and re-planned it under an international operator. Set against that, THIS licensee’s own register flags are clean — Aktif, no recorded offence, zero sick, zero abandoned, empty licence history — and this project has no delivery record of its own at all, because it is 0.00% built.

What should I ask the developer for, in writing?

Nine documents, and every one of them exists even though none of them is public. One: a readable copy of the filed statutory advertisement, because the published one is an image-only scan. Two: the filed built-up schedule and the filed bedroom and bathroom schedule by type — especially Type A’s built-up, which no source publishes at all. Three: the car-park provision per type. Four: the title search, showing the lot or PT number, the mukim, the tenure, the express conditions and any Sekatan Kepentingan. Five: the main contractor, the contract sum and the construction commencement date. Six: the gross floor area, the plot ratio and the surveyed land area, because the register files this scheme with no land area at all. Seven: the written reason for the 20-month extension of time, and your own contractual completion date computed from your own agreement date. Eight: the status of the Convenience Store Space on Level 8 — whether it is strata, whether it is for sale and whether it sits inside the Housing Development Act — because it appears in no KPKT registration. Nine: a measured walking route to the bus-rapid-transit station, and a statement of what it is measured between. Ask for documents, not opinions, and ask for the register code on everything you are shown.

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

USJ 1, Subang Jaya · NOT this project

SCP Mosaic / `RESIDENSI DAMAISARI`

The neighbouring phase, about 211 metres away, under a DIFFERENT licensee, a different licence, a different advertising permit and a different building plan. 924 units, also two 44-storey towers, a filed range reaching RM1,271,000, a 12-month extension, about 25% built and a revised completion date 20 months earlier than this one. Its registered name is this project’s minus a single character. Louis has no page for it and nothing of its has been used here. The comparison table in the questions above is how to tell them apart.

Compare them field by field

Subang Jaya, Selangor

Alora Residences, Subang Jaya

A different developer on a different parcel in the same city, also administered by Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya — its filed plan reference is a third independent MBSJ.BGN.BP reference, which is part of why the council question on this page could be settled from a plan prefix rather than a postcode. Its distance table, its prices and its dates are ITS OWN and not one figure has been read across to this page.

Read the Alora page

Subang Jaya, Selangor

Amika Residences, Subang Jaya

Another Subang Jaya scheme by a different company, listed here because a buyer comparing serviced apartments in this council area will meet it. Different licensee, different licence, different filed particulars — and again, no figure, distance or date has been shared between the two pages.

Read the Amika page

Subang, Selangor

Luminar Residence, Federal Avenue Subang

A different developer again, and the page that settled a question this one needed: that MPSJ and MBSJ are one council renamed in 2020, which is why the two prefixes across the two SCP phases at USJ 1 are a date artefact and not two authorities. Its own distance table puts one of the same malls 8 km away where this developer puts it at 550 m — two developments’ own tables disagreeing is evidence of two different sites, which is exactly why neither borrows from the other.

Read the Luminar page

Selangor

Every Selangor project page

Each page carries the same spine: the filed statutory particulars, the KPKT register position, the foreign-buyer zone and threshold, and an explicit list of what is not published and therefore not on the page. Selangor Zone 1 and Zone 2 carry a RM2,000,000 foreign-buyer floor; Zone 3 carries RM1,000,000.

Browse Selangor

Subang Jaya

Every Subang Jaya project page

Filed under Subang Jaya and deliberately NOT under Shah Alam, even though one publisher’s own canonical URL files this project in Shah Alam against its own statutory panel on the same page. Each page keeps its own distance figures; none is borrowed across pages.

Browse Subang Jaya

Glossary

Schedule H, APDL, Sekatan Kepentingan

The three terms that do most of the work on this page. Schedule H decides the delivery clock, the 24-month defect liability period and the Tribunal route; the advertising and sales permit decides whether a scheme may legally be advertised and sold at all; Sekatan Kepentingan is the clause that cannot be read on this project, which is why the page says so instead of guessing.

Open the glossary

Ask Louis which Subang Jaya project fits your budget

Ask for the documents, not for an opinion

Four documents settle most of what this page could not. The title search gives you the lot or PT number, the mukim, the tenure and the Sekatan Kepentingan clause that the filed advertisement cannot be read for. The current price list and the statutory sale and purchase agreement give you the price, the car park, the built-up as contracted and your OWN completion date, computed from your own signature rather than from the first purchaser’s. The developer’s written statement on the extension of time gives you the reason a 36-month period became 56 months before construction began — something no public source explains. And the LPHS eligibility terms settle whether the 140 state-controlled Type A units are open to you at all. Everything on this page is traceable to a named public source and dated to the day it was read. Nothing on it is a substitute for those four documents.

WhatsApp Louis — the filed particulars The 36 → 56 month question Price and the LPHS Type A terms Call +60 10-906 6685

Marketing information compiled from public records, not an offer and not a quotation. The filed statutory price range quoted on this page is the Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum from the legally filed advertisement particulars as carried by the KPKT register and the developer’s own statutory panel; the RM270,000 minimum is a Selangor state-controlled affordable price attaching to 140 restricted units and is not an open-market entry price. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. Registry fields change without notice. Verify project 31334-1, the developer licence and the advertising and sales permit on the KPKT register, and verify every figure that matters to you against the price list and the sale and purchase agreement before you commit.

Louis Koh

Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency

Over a decade in Malaysian property, covering Johor Bahru and the Klang Valley. Every page on this site is built from the filed statutory particulars first and the marketing second, which is why this one tells you that the contractual construction period was extended from 36 months to 56 while the site was at zero, that the registered name is RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2 and not anything with “Westfield” in it, that the RM270,000 figure is a state-controlled affordable price rather than an entry price, that the marketed size range leaves out one unit in seven, and that there is a near-identical building 211 metres away with a registered name one character apart. Where a figure is not published, this page says so rather than filling the gap. Ask me for the documents and I will get them in writing, or tell you plainly that the developer would not give them.

WhatsApp Louis Koh

Published 13 October 2026 · last verified 13 October 2026 against the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register project record 31334-1 and the licensee record for developer code 31334, the developer’s own statutory advertising and sales permit panel, and LPHS Selangor’s controlled-price project list dated 10 September 2026. Marketing information, not an offer.

SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1928 serviced apartments · 2 × 44 storeys · Jadual H · KPKT 31334-1 (RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2) · USJ 1, Subang Jaya, Daerah Petaling, Selangor · filed range RM270,000 – RM866,000 · 36 → 56 months, revised VP 10 Mar 2031 · 0.00% built, Lancar

WhatsApp Louis

Ask a specific question

If you would rather not use WhatsApp, use this. I answer them myself. Only your name and one contact method are required.

Developer: SCP Property (1 development on this site)

Where it is: Subang Jaya, Selangor

All developers covered

SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1 at a glance — the filed and registered particulars

Explore related topics

Nine things about SCP Westfield Residences that no brochure and no portal tells you

The construction period was extended from 36 months to 56 — before anything was built

The original date, and the extension itself, exist only in the register — but the developer does publish the revised one

The registered name is RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2, and “Westfield” is in no register anywhere

RM270,000 is a state-controlled affordable price, not an entry price

The marketed size range leaves out one unit in seven

There is a near-identical sibling 211 metres away, and its registered name differs by one character

Zero of 928 units clear the foreign-buyer floor, and the title question runs the other way

The developer’s own statutory panel is simply correct — the second time this series has been able to say that

The group’s delivery record tests its own headline claim — and three of four is not four of four

The register, the licence, the permit and the group’s delivery record — read field by field

The facilities schedule — a text list with explicit level headings, which is unusually good, and it contradicts itself on Levels 6 and 7

Level 1 — arrival and services

Levels 6 & 7 — contradicted

Level 8 — “Serenity Oasis”

Level 8 — “Tranquil Oasis”

Level 8 — “Vitality Oasis”

What the level structure implies — and what no source states

Timeline — every dated event, with the governing date marked and the superseded one marked too

Four unit types, 928 units — and not one built-up figure on this page comes from a filed schedule

Type A — 140 units, the state-controlled allocation

Type B — 428 units, the volume type

Type C — 216 units, three bedrooms plus a study

Type D — 144 units, the largest marketed type

Developer imagery — eleven renders from a library that passed the contamination test, and 0.00% of it is built

USJ 1, 47600 Subang Jaya — Daerah Petaling, under Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya

What the developer publishes, and the four things wrong with it

The developer’s own figures, verbatim — education, shopping, healthcare

SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1, Subang Jaya, Selangor: latest prices, layouts and availability

KIARA SQUARE SDN. BHD. — a Subang Jaya building licensed to a company named after a Mont Kiara word

SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1 — the questions, answered from the filed record

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

SCP Mosaic / RESIDENSI DAMAISARI

Alora Residences, Subang Jaya

Amika Residences, Subang Jaya

Luminar Residence, Federal Avenue Subang

Every Selangor project page

Every Subang Jaya project page

Schedule H, APDL, Sekatan Kepentingan

Ask for the documents, not for an opinion

Louis Koh

Worth putting beside this one

Colonial Infinite @ edumetro, USJ 1, Subang Jaya, Selangor

Tujuh Residences — Kwasa Damansara, Shah Alam

NARA @ Shorea Park, Puchong

Andara @ Ara Damansara

BAYU @ OSK Mori Park, Shah Alam

Trinity Nordic @ Seri Kembangan, Selangor

Ask a specific question

SCP Mosaic / `RESIDENSI DAMAISARI`