Erat Residence @ Alam Impian, Seksyen 35, Shah Alam — registered KONDOMINIUM ERAT, KPKT project 9760-6: 269 condominium units on Jadual H in one 27-storey tower, no extension of time has ever been filed, and the published “20% take-up” is refuted by the developer’s own later filing — Baki belum dijual (251 unit) makes it 18 of 269 = 6.69%

Ten things about Erat Residence that no brochure and no portal tells you

Each of these came out of a register read, a filed-document diff, an arithmetic check or a complete-table read — not out of marketing copy. Six of the ten are credits to the developer, and they are printed as plainly as the four that are not.

Three unit types, 269 units — and not one floor plan exists as an image on any surface

Read this before any size figure below. The built-up areas here come from the filed statutory advertisement itself, in both of its live generations, and the filing’s own metric and imperial figures agree to better than 0.1 sq ft on all three types (our own conversions at 10.7639 sq ft/m²) — which, after eleven records in this series where a register land-area field turned out to be a built-up in disguise, is worth saying out loud. What is NOT filed: per-type prices, per-type bedroom and bathroom counts, the floor each type sits on, any balcony or yard area split, and any accessory-parcel figure. And what does not exist at all: a floor plan, a unit layout, a site plan, a masterplan or a facilities plan as an image asset on either of the developer’s two web hosts. The plan sheets live inside the two brochure PDFs only — labelled JENIS A, JENIS B and JENISC, the last with no space, as the filing prints it. So every card below is text, and none of them is illustrated. That is a finding, not a gap in this page.

Sizes and bay counts are the filed figures from the statutory advertisement, in both of its live generations, read 13 October 2026. The bedroom and bathroom mapping is corroborated by three publishers and consistent with the register’s ranges and the filed sanitary schedule, but it is not itself a filed statutory field. Car park bays are filed as a RANGE for Types A and B and no total is published, so no unit’s allocation can be stated as a fact here. No per-type price exists in any filing, so none is given. Confirm every figure that matters to you against the price list and the statutory sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery.

Developer imagery — three artist impressions, two distinct subjects, and a building at a 20.00% band

Why there are only three images here, said plainly. Five further renders from the same art package exist and are NOT published on this page, because their attribution to this project rests on convergence rather than on a printed caption. They are a pool deck, a playground, two landscape views and a drop-off, they sit in the same upload session, the same folder and the same art package as the three above, their own content-management titles name their subjects, and every one of those subjects is in the developer’s own filed facility list. That is strong convergence — and it is still convergence, not a printed statement, so this site does not caption them. And here is the reason that rule earns its keep on this host in particular. The ten images the developer serves inside its OWN Erat block on its own projects page carry a content-management title AND alt text that both name a different development entirely — a completed scheme of the same developer’s in another district, with its own certificates of completion. All ten are refused. And the eight renders that ARE this building are filed on that same page under yet another development. So page placement on this host is not evidence; on this host it is positively misleading, and the attribution of the three images above was settled instead on six convergent legs: a printed caption on the project’s own microsite, a timestamped upload session alongside this project’s own flyer, a same-endpoint search control, the chronology, an independent publisher’s own captioned and credited copy of the same subject, and the filed facility list. Also refused, and listed so that the refusals are checkable: fifteen social-media and digital-advertising creatives with text overlays; three video thumbnails of the chief executive fronting the campaign; two thumbnails whose subject is simply not named; seven licensed stock photographs whose own filenames say they are stock; the whole set of site logos, dividers and interface icons; four press photographs by a named photographer, which are excellent identification evidence and are not Louis’s to publish — one of them is a photograph of a third party’s clubhouse across the road; and one content-management asset whose TITLE embeds a per-square-foot figure which, multiplied by the smallest filed built-up, falls below the filed statutory minimum — the figure is withheld, the title is not reproduced and the asset is refused on that ground alone. Nothing here is a stock photograph, nothing is captioned with a subject this page cannot source, and no image has been borrowed from another of this developer’s projects.

Seksyen 35, Alam Impian, 40470 Shah Alam — Daerah KLANG, under Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam

Read this before the map, because the district on this record is the interesting part. The filed coordinates are 3.026088, 101.510453, from the KPKT register, and the developer’s own microsite maps centre about 90 m away (ours) — two independent surfaces agreeing on one parcel. The approving authority is Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam, settled from the filed approved-plan reference MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/117, which is printed in both filed generations and in both developer brochures — four surfaces, and the plan prefix is the only route this page treats as strong. MBSA’s jurisdiction is the City of Shah Alam only, and that is the location proof. And the district is DAERAH KLANG, which this record FILES outright — daerah: Klang on 9760-6. That makes it the first Alam Impian record in this series whose district field is populated rather than a bare dash; a near neighbour’s two records both read - and had to be argued from a stock-exchange filing instead. It agrees with the five Setia Alam Impian records on the township licence, which all read daerah: Klang — so Seksyen 35 Shah Alam = Daerah Klang now sits on six register records. The lesson this corridor keeps teaching, and the precedent set by a sibling page in this series: in Shah Alam the district comes from the PLAN PREFIX, never from the postcode and never from the township name. 40470 is a Shah Alam postcode and Shah Alam spans two districts, so the postcode settles nothing. One portal’s district field says “Shah Alam”, which is a city and not a daerah at all. Klang and Petaling are both Selangor Zone 1, so the foreign-buyer floor is unaffected either way — but the council, the assessment and a client’s own searches are not. The mukim is not filed on the record and is not given in either filed generation, and it is not estimated here. Then the address trap, and on this project it is a triple. Only ONE of the four addresses in circulation for this company is the site: Erat Residence Show Gallery, No. 1, Jalan Hang Nadim 35/45, Alam Impian, Seksyen 35, 40470 Shah Alam, which appears in both filed generations, in both brochures and on one portal record. The register’s own two addresses are a registered office in Taman Maluri, Kuala Lumpur and a business address in Sepang — and the Sepang one is a unit INSIDE one of the licensee group’s own completed schemes. Never read a locality, a district or a postcode off a licensee’s register address rows. One portal carries a fourth, degraded version with no street at all.

Kondominium Erat — KPKT project 9760-6, licensee SUNTRACK DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 200401026810 (665318-M), marketed as Erat Residence @ Alam Impian

The row below is the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for project 9760-6, read on 13 October 2026, set beside both live generations of the filed statutory advertisement and the developer’s own statutory panel, which it prints inside both of its brochures. Four statutory surfaces exist on this project and all four were read separately — so this is neither the “the filing cannot be read” case nor the “neither generation carries a statutory block” case that this series often meets. And they agree: the licence number and its validity, the permit dates, the plan reference, the approving authority, the building type, the tenure, the chargee, the unit total, the three-type schedule, the car park per type and the price band all match across the surfaces that carry them. Three fields are in the register and in no filing (the 27 storeys, the district Klang, and the whole delivery block including the first agreement date and the governing completion date); two are in the filings and not in the register (the tenure and the chargee); one is better on the developer’s own panel than in the filing (the full company registration number, and the permit’s real validity dates); and one is on NONE of them: Sekatan Kepentingan.

Source and date. KPKT KPKT TEDUH register project record 9760-6 and the licensee record for developer code 9760, with the full serial walk 9760-1 to 9760-7, all read 13 October 2026; both live generations of the filed statutory advertisement on the KPKT HIMS file server — the durable-looking older path form and the temp-P45 path form that the register itself links, which is not the older one — read and diffed the same day; and the developer’s own statutory panel inside its English and Malay brochures, read separately. Two further filing URLs were tried and returned 404, so there is no third generation and no newspaper advertisement to compare. Every figure in this table is either a register field, a field printed in one or both filed generations, a line from the developer’s own panel, or arithmetic labelled as ours.

What this table is and is not. It is the public statutory record plus two filed generations of a statutory advertisement and a developer-published statutory panel, read on one date and reproduced with that date attached. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and the price range in it is the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum for the whole 269-unit scheme — not a per-unit price, not a per-type price and not a current asking figure. The 20.00% completion figure is a BAND and no date may be computed from it. The 4.49-acre land area used in the density arithmetic on this page is a DEVELOPER figure: Keluasan Tanah is not printed in either filed generation and the register files keluasan: 0 mps. Prices, availability, the car park allocation and the contractual terms come from the current price list and the statutory sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery, and from nothing on this page. Registry fields change without notice: re-read 9760-6 before you sign anything.

The “20% take-up” figure — refuted twice by the developer’s own filings, with the arithmetic shown

The claim. One publisher group reported on 10 July 2025, under a headline naming the figure, that this project had achieved a “20% take-up rate since March”. The first refutation is the developer’s own later filing. The current generation of the filed statutory advertisement — served under a KPKT file path whose own date segment reads 13 August 2026, thirteen months after the claim — prints Jumlah Unit: Kondominium (269 unit) and, on a line the superseded generation does not carry at all, Baki belum dijual (251 unit). 269 − 251 = 18 units sold, which is 6.69% of the scheme (our own arithmetic on the filing’s own two numbers). The second refutation is the register, and it is independent of the first. tarikhPjbPertama — the date of the first sale and purchase agreement ever signed on this project — is 4 May 2026, fourteen months after the March 2025 soft launch. A 20% take-up in mid-2025 is not reconcilable with a first sale-and-purchase agreement in May 2026. Two separate statutory facts against one published claim, and the filing POST-DATES the claim by more than a year. The caveats, printed because they are part of the finding. The filing attaches NO as-at date to the 251-unit figure; the 13 August 2026 reading comes from the file path’s own date segment and is stated here as a reading, not as a filed date. So the honest statement is: the developer’s most recent filed advertisement records 251 of 269 units unsold, undated, and the register records the first sale as 4 May 2026. Neither of those is a prediction of how the project is selling today, and this page makes none. And the general lesson, because it travels. A Baki Unit or Baki belum dijual line is a TAKE-UP CHECK, not merely a caveat attached to a price table. Where a filing carries one, it can be set against any published take-up percentage and the arithmetic is public. Ask the developer for a dated count in writing; a percentage in a headline is not one.

The delivery position — and it is a credit, on this project and across the whole licence

The fields, as filed, with nothing inferred from them. pjb.jenis: Jadual H · tempohAsal: 36 Bulan · tarikhPjbPertama: 4 May 2026 · serahKosong: 4 May 2029 · pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Tidak · tempohTambahanDiluluskan: “-” · tempohPembinaanBaharu: “-” · serahKosongBaharu: “-” · peratusSiap: 20.00 · status.keseluruhan: Lancar · ccc: “-” · vp: “-”. And Lewat, the register’s own late flag, was looked for specifically and is NOT set. So: no extension of time has ever been approved on this project. Most projects this series examines carry one, and most do not mention it — here there is nothing to disclose, and that is the finding. Then the arithmetic, and it points the same way. 36 contractual months from 4 May 2026 run to 4 May 2029, which is about 1,095 days; at 13 October 2026 about 162 of them had elapsed, or 14.8% of the programme, against a 20.00% built band (our own arithmetic on two filed dates; the percentage is the register’s own band). The build is therefore running AHEAD of its own elapsed programme, with no extension on the record, no late flag and a Lancar status. That is the position and it is published as the position, not as a prediction. The caveat that must travel with it. peratusSiap is BANDED, not measured — this series has recorded an identical value on two unrelated licensees’ projects four kilometres apart — so no completion date may be computed from 20.00%, and none is computed here. And one test that simply cannot be run: the contractor float. No main contractor is named on any surface — not in either filed generation, not in either brochure, not on the developer’s own sites, not in any of the five publisher and press records, and the industry contractor register holds nothing for this project. The developer and its whole group are PRIVATE, so there is no stock-exchange announcement, no annual report and no investor route. Consequence: there is no commencement date, so the question “does the build programme fit the contractual date?” has no inputs in either direction. Elapsed-versus-built is the only test available, and that is the one printed above. Now widen it to the whole licence, because that is where this becomes unusual. The full serial walk of licence 9760 returns six registrations: 9760-1 Puncak Mutiara (Hulu Langat, 92 terraces, Schedule G, Siap Dengan CFO, certificate 17 Aug 2007) · 9760-2 Summerglades (Sepang, 137 terraces, Schedule G, Siap Dengan CCC at 100%) · 9760-3 Residensi Riyang (Kuala Lumpur, 303 units, Schedule H, complete at 100%) · 9760-4 Pangsapuri Tuai Barat and 9760-5 Kondominium Tuai Timur (both Daerah Petaling, 330 units and 29 storeys each, Schedule H, both complete at 100%) · and 9760-6, this project. Five of the six are already complete — and every single one of the six reads pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Tidak. Tidak × 6 on a licence that MIXES Schedule G and Schedule H kills the idea that the field merely tracks the contract schedule — an idea this series has already buried on two other licences — and it is the first licence in this series on which the field reads Tidak on every record. Not one of this developer’s six registrations has ever asked for an extension of time. The honest limit on that credit, and it matters. The early records carry vp: “-” and only 9760-1 carries a dated certificate in the data read, so the CCC dates for the other four were not individually read. The claim this page makes is therefore “five of five complete, none ever extended” — and NOT “five of five delivered inside their contractual date”. Do not upgrade it. And two dates a buyer should be told, because they are real and nobody prints them together. The advertising permit expires 20 March 2028 and the developer licence expires 7 February 2028 — 410 days and 452 days respectively BEFORE the contractual completion date of 4 May 2029 (ours) — with 251 of 269 units still unsold on the current filing. Both will have to be renewed mid-sale. That is normal, and this licence has plainly been renewed repeatedly since 2004 — but a buyer reading the permit dates on the brochure they are handed today should know that the permit on it expires before the building is due.

Six completion dates circulate, one governs — and the developer’s error runs in the buyer’s favour

Every date in circulation, with its source. (1) 4 MAY 2029 — the KPKT register: Schedule H, tempohAsal: 36 Bulan, first sale and purchase agreement 4 May 2026, pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Tidak. THIS ONE GOVERNS: it is the contractual date under the statutory Schedule H contract. (2) July 2028 (Julai 2028) — BOTH filed generations of the statutory advertisement AND both of the developer’s own brochures: four surfaces. (3) 4Q 2028 — two press records of 10 July 2025 and one portal. (4) 01 Jan 2028 — one portal’s /condo/ record: the earliest of all, and it matches nothing. (5) 2029 — the same portal’s /new-launches/ record for the same project, the only consumer source in the right year. (6) “Launch In 2025” — the developer’s own corporate projects page, which is a launch label and not a completion date at all; do not read it as one. Six statements across five sources, and one portal alone carries two of them, twelve months apart, on two separate records for one project. Which governs, and why. Under Schedule H the delivery obligation is a contractual term: the construction period is 36 months and it runs from the date of each purchaser’s own sale and purchase agreement. The register’s 4 May 2029 is 36 months from the FIRST agreement, which is the date the register is designed to show. An advertised “expected completion” date is not a contractual date and does not displace one. And the direction of the error deserves a line of credit. The developer is advertising July 2028, about ten months EARLIER than the date it is contractually bound to. This series far more often finds the opposite — a filing or a portal still printing a superseded date that flatters the developer after an extension of time has been approved. Here the mistake costs the developer and not the buyer. What a buyer should do with that. Ask for your own completion date in writing, computed 36 months from your own signature, and check it against the date in the agreement itself rather than against either the brochure or this page.

Foreign buyers — nought of 269 units clear the floor, and the title question never gets asked

The zone and the floor. Daerah Klang sits in Selangor Zone 1, where the published minimum purchase price for a non-citizen is RM2,000,000 for strata and gated landed strata. That figure rests on a three-source consensus — an independent property-finance guide, IQI’s own land guide and a housing-market tracker — because the Selangor land office publishes no reachable circular, so the consensus is cited as a consensus and a buyer should confirm it with the land office in writing. Note the DISTRICT, not the city: this record files daerah: Klang, and Klang is Zone 1 — the same floor as Petaling, so the answer does not turn on which district Shah Alam puts this parcel in. But the page must not say “Zone 1 because Shah Alam”, because Shah Alam straddles two districts. And any source that files this project in Kuala Lumpur halves the floor, since the Federal Territory figure is RM1,000,000 with EPU consent. The price answer, and it is not close. The filed statutory maximum for the whole scheme is RM1,346,000, which is 67.30% of the RM2,000,000 floor — short by RM654,000 (our own arithmetic on the filed maximum and the published floor). So nought of 269 units reaches the floor. No per-type band is filed, so no type can be tested individually; and a reading, stated as a reading: the band’s two ends are consistent with the cheapest Type A and the single Type C, since RM666,000 ÷ 1,098 sq ft = RM606 psf and RM1,346,000 ÷ 2,206 sq ft = RM610 psf (ours). Even on that reading the single largest unit in the building is 32.7% short of the floor, so the conclusion does not depend on it. The title answer, and it runs the OTHER way. This is strata: Schedule H, the permit tail -(S), the filed type Kondominium, the register type Rumah Pangsa/Kondo, 27 storeys, one tower. So the individual-title bar that defeats several landed and gated-landed schemes in this series does NOT arise here — Selangor permits strata acquisition by a non-citizen above the floor. The title type runs in a foreign buyer’s favour and the price does not. Because the price closes the door on every unit in the building, the title question never gets asked. And two bars this series normally reads are BOTH unavailable here. First, Sekatan Kepentingan CANNOT BE READ. The line is absent from both filed generations, from both developer brochures and from the register. A filed restriction in interest is the strongest single bar signal this series reads, and here we simply cannot see whether one exists — so this page says CANNOT BE READ and never “none filed”. Second, the gated-and-guarded condition cannot be tested on a filed document, because neither filed generation carries a facilities legend at all and there is therefore NO FILED SECURITY SCHEDULE. The evidence that exists is a developer-brochure facility list containing a guardhouse, pedestrian access and a fenced playground, the brochure’s introduction of a security consultant with no assigned role, and a portal’s “24-hour security” tag. On a strata scheme that condition is moot for the foreign-buyer answer anyway — and a portal tag is not allowed to do statutory work on this page. No second bar from an affordable allocation. There is no Rumah Selangorku stock and no state-controlled price in this registration, so the eligibility question that attaches to a block of restricted units on two sibling pages of this site does not arise here at all. And the thing worth saying loudest: NOT ONE SOURCE ANYWHERE SAYS ANY OF THIS. No filing, no brochure, no portal record and no press article mentions foreign eligibility for this project. Both halves of the answer — the title that helps and the price that does not — are computed here from filed figures and a published threshold.

Both filed generations are live and readable — and the diff between them is a two-field RESULT

The inventory first, because it decides what can be quoted. Two generations of the filed statutory advertisement exist on the KPKT file server and BOTH are live, BOTH have a readable text layer and BOTH carry a full BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN statutory block. One sits under the durable-looking older path form; the other sits under a temp-P45 path form and it is the one the register itself links. So the older-looking path is NOT the current filing — which is at least the fifth confirmation in this series that the KPKT file-server path form does not track filing date or currency. Always pull both. Two further filing URLs were tried and returned 404, so there is no third generation and no filed newspaper advertisement. Together with the developer’s own panel in two languages, that makes FOUR statutory surfaces, all four read separately. The diff, field by field. The two generations agree on every statutory particular except two — the licensee and its registration number, the site and show-gallery address with its telephone and fax numbers, the licence number and validity, the approved-plan reference MBSA.BGN.600-3/2/117, the approving authority, the building type, the tenure Kekal/Bebas, the charge to UOB Bank Berhad, the expected completion date July 2028, the three-type schedule, the car park per type, the statutory price band and the approval stamp are identical. The two that differ are both real: (1) the permit validity. The newer generation prints genuine dates, 21/03/2025 – 20/03/2028, which match the register exactly — while the older generation placeholders the permit NUMBER and its DATES. Both generations placeholder the number, in two different masks (XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and xxx/xxxx/xxxxxxxxxx) — a sixth placeholder variant for this series’ running list, and a second instance of the “placeholder number with genuine validity dates” shape. The consequence is useful: lapse IS assessable from the current brochure alone, as well as independently from the register. (2) Baki belum dijual (251 unit), which only the newer generation carries — and which is the single most consequential number in the filing. Plus one cosmetic change, in the heading itself: KONDOMINIUM ERAT becomes ALAM IMPIAN KONDOMINIUM ERAT. Why a two-field diff is a result and not a failed check. The normal outcome in this series is a generation pair that disagrees on a dozen or more statutory particulars; one project was sixteen fields apart. So the correct statement here is that the two filed generations agree on every statutory particular except the permit validity and the remaining-unit count — and it would be wrong to imply the comparison was unavailable. And the developer’s own panel earns a credit of its own. There is no statutory page on the corporate site and none on the project microsite — the panel lives inside the two brochure PDFs and had to be read there. Cross-checked field by field against both filed generations and the register, it is CORRECT on: the licensee name, the FULL company registration number (where the filing gives only the old-format number and the register gives none), the licence number and validity, the permit number and its real validity dates, the approving authority, the plan reference, the tenure, the chargee, the unit total, the three-type schedule, the car park per type and the statutory band to the ringgit. Its ONLY fault is the completion date, which it shares with both filed generations and which errs in the buyer’s favour. This is the third project in this series whose developer-published statutory panel is substantially correct on every cross-checkable field — so the whole stale-data-strip family of faults, from minima below the filed minimum to a fabricated validity date to a permit serial sitting in the licence field, CANNOT arise here. A credit is as publishable as a fault. Two small qualifications: the panel prints the (N) permit suffix against the register’s (A), and the English brochure carries one distance row that the Malay brochure does not.

The permit, the licence, the tenure and the chargee — four credits and one open question

Permit cover is CONTINUOUS, and that is read off the history rather than assumed. The permit history for 9760-6 holds exactly two rows, both running 21 March 2025 to 20 March 2028: 9760-6/03-2028/0238(A)-(S) marked Aktif, and 9760-6/03-2028/0238(N)-(S) marked Tidak Aktif. Same serial, same number, same 36-month validity. There is no unpermitted interval and none is possible — the exact inverse of a project in this series that ran thirteen and a half months unpermitted. Read a permit history for credits, not only for faults. Permit 1 pre-dates SPA 1 by 409 days. First permit 21 March 2025; first sale and purchase agreement 4 May 2026 (our own arithmetic on two filed dates). Selling began well inside a valid permit, and that is the largest such margin this series has recorded. It also means the March 2025 soft launch fell within days of the permit’s issue — consistent, and worth saying, because this series has also met the opposite, where a licence post-dated a groundbreaking. The open question, flagged as a question and never as a fault. Both of the developer’s own brochures print the (N) permit suffix, while the register’s project field carries the (A). This is at least the ninth confirmation in this series of a developer publishing an (N) against a register (A) — a publication habit, not a defect. And this record is genuine evidence for an open hypothesis, namely that (N) on an advertising permit may mean first issue rather than inactive: the history contains only these two rows, the (N) row is the one the developer was given to print, and the (A) row carries identical dates. Recorded as evidence, not as a resolution. KPKT publishes no key. The licence. 9760/02-2028/0139(A), valid 8 February 2023 to 7 February 2028, printed with the same number, the same validity and the same (A) suffix on four surfaces — the register, both filed generations and both brochures. So the (A)/(N) licence-suffix trap that has recurred on eight-plus projects in this series does not arise on the licence here; it arises on the permit instead. CURRENT at 13 October 2026 with 1 year 3 months 25 days to run (ours). The licence serial is low, the licensee has delivered since 2004, and the register carries a previous-licence row on its first project dating to 2005, so (A) is consistent with a long-renewed licence — stated as a reading, because KPKT publishes no key to the suffixes. Tenure: FREEHOLD, on six surfaces, two of them filed documents. Pegangan: Kekal/Bebas in both filed generations, Pegangan: Kekal in the Malay brochure, “Freehold” in the English brochure, on the developer’s corporate page and on two portal records. No leasehold statement exists anywhere and no lease expiry applies. But the register carries no top-level pegangan field on this record, so the tenure is filed-and-marketed rather than register-confirmed — and this page says which. Context, because the developer’s “first freehold condominium” claim needs it: the township itself is freehold, so freehold here is not unusual for the locality. The chargee, and it does not move. Bebanan Tanah: GADAIAN (UOB Bank BERHAD) is printed in both filed generations and both developer brochures — four surfaces, one chargee, no movement between generations. This series has repeatedly found a chargee changing between generations, in both directions: a Tiada that becomes a named bank, and a named bank that becomes a Tiada, i.e. a discharge. Here it is stable, and that stability is a small credit. The register prints no bebanan field, so the charge too is filed-and-marketed rather than register-confirmed. And a note on the “first freehold condominium in Alam Impian” claim itself, which two publishers carry. It cannot be verified from any register route, and the reason must be stated: the register’s search endpoint matches DEVELOPER names only, so no township-level register search exists; the township licence carries 34 registered projects that would each have to be walked; and a portal’s own “condominiums in Alam Impian” page returns six listings, all of them this project, which is a listings count and not a register answer. What supports the claim: the township’s own master developer lists seven current products and not one apartment or condominium among them. So it is carried here as a developer and press claim with that partial support, and with the plain statement that it cannot be confirmed from the register.

Price — one clean band on five surfaces, and a GDV that no longer reconciles with it

The band, and it is unusually clean. RM666,000 to RM1,346,000 appears identically, to the sen, on FIVE surfaces: the superseded filed generation, the current filed generation, the developer’s English brochure panel, its Malay brochure panel, and the register’s own component row (RM666,000.00 – RM1,346,000.00). This series has caught register bands that splice an old minimum onto a new maximum on four separate projects, bands carrying orphan figures, and registers whose minimum sat BELOW the filing’s. None of that is present here, the comparison was run against BOTH filed generations, and a clean band deserves naming as readily as a bad one. The register’s band is a single row: no second price row, no affordable row and no per-block split. What it is and is not. It is the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum for the whole 269-unit scheme, published here as the filed registry particular it is. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, it is not a per-type price — no per-type statutory price is filed at all — and it is not a current asking figure. No affordable allocation, and this needs saying out loud because sibling pages on this site differ. Two pages in this series carry a state-controlled affordable row in the same filed band; one does not; and a reader comparing them is entitled to know which case this is. This is the second kind: there is no Harga Mampu Milik (LPHS) row and no Rumah Selangorku stock in this registration, and all 269 units are open-market. Four independent tests say so: both filed generations print a single Harga Jualan Kondominium line; the register carries one component row and one band; there is no duplicated built-up at two prices and no affordable type-code pair among the three type codes; and RM666,000 ÷ 1,098 sq ft = RM606 psf (ours), which is an open-market figure — the state-controlled rows on the two sibling pages both sat at RM270,000. And a fifth check, with its own caveat attached: LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price project list dated 10 September 2026 carries no row for this developer, this project, this township or any Seksyen 35 scheme. But absence from that list is NEVER a negative, because the list carries only stock open for application — so it is cited here as consistent with the four tests above and as nothing more. A second state portal was also tried and is inert, which is likewise never a negative. Then the GDV, which must be handled as arithmetic and not repeated as a fact. Two publishers reported, both on 10 July 2025, an announced gross development value of RM173.36 million. Divide it by the 269 units and the implied average is RM644,461 — which is RM21,539 BELOW the cheapest unit the developer may lawfully advertise under the current filing (our own arithmetic on one published GDV and the filed band). A GDV whose implied average sits below the filed statutory minimum is arithmetically impossible against the current filing. For completeness: the sum of the filed minima alone is 269 × RM666,000 = RM179,154,000, so the announced GDV is RM5,794,000 or 3.23% BELOW even the minimum case, and it is 52.1% below the maximum case. The reading: RM173.36 million is a launch-era figure computed on a launch-era price list, and the filed band has since moved up. That is the fifth worked example of this test in this series, and it corroborates the stale-generation reading from a completely independent direction. The GDV itself IS publishable, because a gross development value is not a price offered to a buyer — so it is published here with its date, its two publishers and the plain statement that it no longer reconciles with the current filed band.

Density — the claim is arithmetically correct, the acreage survives a cross-check, and five denominators are refused

The arithmetic, with the denominator named. 269 units ÷ 4.49 acres = 59.91 units per acre (our own arithmetic on a DEVELOPER-published acreage). So the brochure’s own “just 60 units per acre” — Hanya 60 unit setiap ekar in the Malay version — is ARITHMETICALLY CORRECT, and this page says so. This series routinely catches density claims computed against a whole township, against a landscaped-greenery figure or against a public park. This one is computed against the project’s own parcel and it checks out. Where the denominator comes from, every time it is used. 4.49 acres is a DEVELOPER figure, carried on seven surfaces with no variant — both brochures, the corporate page, three press records and one portal. But Keluasan Tanah is NOT PRINTED in either filed generation and the register files keluasan: “0 mps”, which is the familiar “not filed” value. So it is labelled a developer figure on this page every time it appears. Conversions, ours: 4.49 acres = 195,584 sq ft = 1.8170 ha = 18,170 m². The cross-check, because an acreage should be corroborated rather than merely accepted or refused. The filed built-up schedule times the filed unit counts gives 160 × 1,098 = 175,680 sq ft, 108 × 1,216 = 131,328 sq ft and 1 × 2,206 = 2,206 sq ft, a total filed net residential area of 309,214 sq ft against 195,584 sq ft of land — a net plot ratio of 1.58 (all ours, on the filed schedule and a developer acreage). 1.58 net is modest and entirely consistent with a single 27-storey tower plus a separate multi-storey carpark building on a 4.49-acre site with substantial open ground — which is exactly what the developer’s own facility list describes, with an outdoor court, a communal garden, a gazebo, a roundabout, a 320 m walking track, a sports hall and a pool deck all OUTSIDE the residential tower. A second internal check points the same way: 269 ÷ 27 storeys = 9.96 units per floor, a plausible single-tower plate. So the 4.49 acres is corroborated as a genuine land area and is not a landscaped-greenery figure sitting in the land-area slot — a trap this series has met before, tested for here and found absent. The honest limit on that check: it is INTERNAL. It sets the filing’s own built-ups against the developer’s own acreage. There is no land transaction, no title area, no quantity-surveyor gross floor area and no filed lot dimension to test it against — no GFA figure is published by anybody at all — so it is weaker than a check against a title and stronger than nothing. The context the “low density” adjective needs. Against the high-rise projects in this series, 59.91 units per acre is at the LOW end: other pages on this site record 140.8, 216.5, 228.8 and approximately 681 units per acre, while a project in this very district sits at 60.9, almost exactly here. So “low density” is a defensible claim for a Klang Valley condominium, and this page says so as readily as it refuses an undefended one — while noting it is NOT low by landed standards, where the same series records 9.41 and 11.92. Five denominators were available and all five are refused. (1) The township’s 1,235 acres — 269 ÷ 1,235 = 0.22 units per acre, absurd by a factor of 275, and the acreage belongs to a DIFFERENT LICENSEE’S masterplan. (2) keluasan: 0 mps — that is not zero land, it is NO land area; and the good news on this record is that the field is simply empty rather than being a built-up in disguise, which is a trap this series has now met on eleven records. (3) The township’s 31-acre central park — a public park belonging to the township masterplan, and the developer’s own table puts the lake park 550 m AWAY, i.e. off site. (4) The 320 m walking track — a LENGTH, not an area: a new variant of the greenery-figure trap, offered among site statistics. (5) The “extra green area” claim — it carries no figure at all, so it cannot be a denominator and must not become a percentage either.

Awards — Erat has none, and the borrow is pre-made inside its own brochure

The developer’s own awards page lists TWENTY items, and not one of them is Erat’s. Five belong to Tuai Residence and Tuai Barat Residence at Setia Alam (registers 9760-4 and 9760-5, Daerah Petaling, both completed with certificates of completion) — including the MIP Planning Excellence Awards 2024, Gold, for “Inclusive Design”, two StarProperty 2021 awards and two Asia Pacific Property Awards 2021-22. Five belong to Summerglades at Cyberjaya (9760-2). Two belong to Kanvas SOHO — including the FIABCI Malaysia Property Award 2019 for Residential High-Rise — and Kanvas SOHO IS NOT EVEN THIS LICENSEE’S PROJECT: it sits under SUNTRACK RAVEN SDN. BHD., developer code 14120, a separate licensee whose licence expired on 9 October 2025. Two belong to The Riyang in Kuala Lumpur (9760-3) and one to Suntrack Hub at Bangi. Five are CORPORATE: three employer awards, an ISO 9001:2015 certification — which is a certification and not an award — and a 2015 FINALIST placing in a people’s-choice category, which is not a win and is reproduced here with that word attached. ERAT RESIDENCE HOLDS NO AWARD OF ANY KIND, and that is stated outright rather than handled by omitting the section. And here is why it matters more than usual: the borrow is PRE-MADE inside Erat’s own brochure. The brochure’s developer track-record pages reproduce the MIP 2024 Gold Award for Inclusive Design — which belongs to Tuai Barat Residence — and the FIABCI Malaysia 2019 award — which belongs to Kanvas SOHO, a DIFFERENT LICENSEE’S project — and it also reproduces its architect’s own PAM award. It calls the company “a multiple award-winning developer”, which is true of the developer and false of this project. The Gold for Inclusive Design is the most seductive borrow this series has encountered, because inclusive design is exactly what Erat is sold on. It is refused by name, and so is the FIABCI. Check what an award was actually given to, even when it is printed inside the project’s own brochure. Two further cautions. The awarding body is named only inside each award title, so this page invents no separate body; and no QLASSIC score exists for any project of this developer’s on that awards page. The honest line, and it is the one this page publishes. The developer has won awards for its earlier buildings, including a 2024 Gold Award for Inclusive Design for Tuai Barat Residence in Setia Alam. Erat Residence itself has not been entered for, or awarded, anything.

Green certification — none, nobody claims any, and the developer deserves credit for that

The verdict, register by register. GreenRE PLATINUM: 95 rows read, the last row COMPLETE rather than cut mid-field, so the table did not truncate — and that is the twentieth consecutive consistent run of this check in this series, which makes it a GENUINE CLEAN NEGATIVE. No entry for this project, this developer or this township. GreenRE GOLD, SILVER and BRONZE all TRUNCATE (about 130, 141 and 330 rows, each cut mid-field), so for those three the honest statement is “no entry in the reachable portion” and not a clean negative. But the Bronze certification-entry list was also read at a deep offset: 332 entries covering 4 April 2024 to 30 March 2026 — EXACTLY the right window for a March 2025 permit and a July 2025 launch — with no cell naming this developer, this project or this township. That is an unusually strong negative, not an untested one. GBI: its certified-buildings directory has returned errors throughout this series and its replacement host is robots-disallowed, so GBI is INCONCLUSIVE and is never read as a negative. And the developer advertises nothing green. Neither filed generation, neither brochure, the corporate site, the project microsite, the awards page and no press article claims GreenRE, GBI or any certification at all. The brochure lists green FEATURES — a rainwater-harvesting tank, dual-flush toilets, a centralised water filter, north–south building orientation, “extra green area” and a 320 m walking track — and it stops there. This series names over-claiming often enough to owe a clean developer a sentence, so here it is: the developer makes no green-certification claim, and neither the GreenRE registers nor GBI records one. The caveat this page carries anyway, because it applies to every project: “aligned with”, “follows” or “designed to” a green standard is TARGETING, not certification — and no such phrase appears here either. The one green-adjacent claim that does exist, and it is not a certification. The English brochure states that “ERAT’s construction is quality assured with QLASSIC assessment”. QLASSIC is a CIDB workmanship assessment, not a design, property or sustainability award, and it is scored AFTER construction — while this building sits at a 20.00% band. NO score is published anywhere: not on the brochure, not on the awards page, not by CIDB in any reachable source. So the statement is an intention to be assessed, not a result, and that is exactly how this page publishes it. No sibling’s score is placed beside it either. And a word on the sixteen rows that were refused along the way, because the refusals are part of the work. Every one of them is a different licensee. They include the chargee bank’s own green-certified premises — one of them in this very district, which is a new decoy axis for this series: the filed Bebanan Tanah field names a bank, and that bank has certified buildings of its own. They include eleven rows belonging to Sime Darby Property entities, reached from the township error corrected below, and not one of them is in Alam Impian. They include four rows whose licensee company name literally contains the words “Shah Alam”, which is the most dangerous cluster of all on a Shah Alam job. They include a row in a SIBLING project’s locality — reached from this developer’s own completed Setia Alam schemes rather than from Erat’s own locality, which is a second new axis. And they include a commercial-tool row matching both “Alam” and “Kemuning”, now refused by a fourth sheet in this series on a fourth keyword route. The rule that held throughout: refuse on licensee and tool code, never on a brand word or a place word.

The licensed developer — and a widely held error about the township, corrected

The licensee. SUNTRACK DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD., registration 200401026810 (665318-M) — the FULL number appears on the developer’s own site footer and in both brochures, the filed advertisement prints only the old-format 665318-M, and TEDUH prints no registration number at all. KPKT developer code 9760; licence 9760/02-2028/0139(A) valid 8 February 2023 to 7 February 2028; jumlahProjek: 6; statusPemaju: Aktif; mempunyaiKesalahan: null; zero sick and zero abandoned projects. Six registrations, five of them complete, and not one has ever taken an approved extension of time. The chief executive, James KK Tan, is quoted by name and title in two press records and fronts the project’s own video campaign; the group names no holding company, publishes no group registration number and has no listed parent, and no shareholding of any kind is published. Now the error, because almost every page about this project repeats it. ALAM IMPIAN IS NOT A SIME DARBY PROPERTY TOWNSHIP. Its master developer is I&P ALAM IMPIAN SDN BHD (199601021892 / 394244-M), KPKT code 9829, licence 9829/08-2028/1050(A), 34 registered projects, described on its own records as a member of the S P Setia group; and the township also contains a Naza TTDI precinct under code 30962. Measured, in one session: a register search for q=ALAM IMPIAN returns EXACTLY ONE licensee and it is I&P; a search for q=SIME DARBY returns 21+ licensees, every one of them a SIME DARBY PROPERTY (<place>) SDN. BHD. special-purpose company, and NOT ONE of them contains “Alam Impian”. The probable cause is a one-word collision: SIME DARBY PROPERTY (SAUJANA IMPIAN) SDN. BHD., KPKT code 4109 — Saujana Impian is Sime Darby Property’s KAJANG township; Alam Impian is I&P and S P Setia’s SHAH ALAM township. One word apart. And several of that company’s sibling entities are in or beside this very district, which makes the collision easy to make and easy to miss. And Erat’s own developer is neither of them. Suntrack Development holds no part of licence 9829 and no I&P or Sime Darby entity holds any part of registration 9760-6. Erat is a THIRD-PARTY PARCEL inside somebody else’s township — two licences, two licensees, one township, and the separation is clean on the register. The consequence for this page is absolute: the township’s 1,235 acres, its 31-acre central park, its products, its awards and its distances belong to the master developer and NONE of them appears here. Four addresses, and only one is the site. The site and show gallery: No. 1, Jalan Hang Nadim 35/45, Alam Impian, Seksyen 35, 40470 Shah Alam, in both filed generations, both brochures and one portal record — and one portal deserves a line of credit for being the only consumer record that carries the full filed street address. The register’s own registered office is in Taman Maluri, Kuala Lumpur, and its business address is a unit INSIDE one of the licensee group’s own completed schemes in Sepang — a fourth shape of the scraped-address trap for this series. Neither is within 25 km of the site, and neither may ever be published as the project’s address. The consultants, and a shape worth recording. The English brochure introduces five firms as the developer’s “‘extended’ family in this effort”: T&T Architect, Ambieuu Landscape Sdn Bhd, Momentum Studio, Dr. Naziaty, an associate professor at Universiti Malaya described as an accessibility and universal-design expert, and GDSS Systems Sdn Bhd, described as a security consultant. NOT ONE of the five is given a stated role on this project — the brochure lists them under a relationship word, not an appointment — and neither filed generation names any consultant at all. So they are published here only as firms the developer’s own brochure introduces in connection with the project, and never as “the architect” or “the landscape consultant”. A developer brochure that names five consultants and assigns none of them a role is a new shape for this series. What must not migrate from the siblings. Residensi Riyang is in Kuala Lumpur; Tuai Barat and Tuai Timur are in Daerah Petaling at Setia Alam, 330 units and 29 storeys each, completed; Summerglades is in Sepang; Puncak Mutiara is in Hulu Langat. Their awards, their images, their built-ups, their bands and their completion records are not Erat’s. And Kanvas and Kanvas SOHO belong to a DIFFERENT LICENSEE, SUNTRACK RAVEN SDN. BHD., code 14120, whose licence expired on 9 October 2025 — that expiry is a completed scheme’s licence left to lapse and it is NOT a finding about Erat. The two licensees are kept apart on this page.

What is not printed, what is not published, and what simply does not exist — three different things

This page keeps three kinds of absence apart, because they are not the same and a buyer is entitled to know which one applies. NOT PRINTED in either filed generation, although the statutory form has a line for it: (1) the advertising permit NUMBER, placeholdered in both, in two different masks — the real number comes from the register and both brochures print its (N) twin; (2) Sekatan Kepentingan, absent from both generations, from both brochures AND from the register, so it CANNOT BE READ and this page never writes “none filed”; (3) Bilangan Tingkat — the 27 storeys come from the register alone; (4) Keluasan Tanah — the 4.49 acres is a developer figure and the register files keluasan: 0 mps; (5) the consultants — no architect, engineer, contractor or consultant is named in either generation; (6) per-type prices — one overall band only, which is what limits the foreign-buyer arithmetic to a single figure; (7) per-type bedroom and bathroom counts; (8) the block count; (9) the lot number, PT number, title number, mukim and bandar or pekan, on any surface at all; (10) the housing development account number; and (11) a facilities legend — neither generation carries one, which is why there is no filed security schedule on this project and why a gated-and-guarded statement here would rest on a brochure item plus a portal tag. NOT PUBLISHED by anybody — not the filings, not the register, not the developer, not the press, not a portal: (12) the main contractor, and therefore no commencement date, which is why the contractor-float test cannot be run in EITHER direction — the group is private, so there is no stock-exchange announcement, no annual report and no industry contractor record; (13) the landowner or land vendor, and any joint venture or shareholding; (14) the storey count of the multi-storey carpark building and the TOTAL number of parking bays; (15) the number of lifts — passenger and service lifts are named, with no count; (16) the units per floor, which is why 9.96 is labelled as our own arithmetic; (17) the HDA status of the filed Retail space, and whether it is for sale at all; (18) any CCC or vacant-possession date — both read -, because the building is under construction; (19) the as-at date of the Baki belum dijual (251 unit) figure, which is the single most consequential number in the filing; (20) the maintenance charge and the sinking-fund rate; (21) the strata share-unit allocation, and whether the retail space and the carpark building sit inside the management corporation; (22) any level assignment for any facility — no source places a single amenity on a floor, so this page places none; (23) any gross floor area, from anybody, which is why the plot-ratio check could only be run on net saleable area; (24) any rail station, with or without a distance; and (25) the nearest government hospital and the nearest national primary school inside the township. DOES NOT EXIST as an image on either of the developer’s hosts: any floor plan, unit layout, site plan, masterplan or facilities plan. Both media libraries were swept — the main host by targeted searches and the project subsite by a full date-ascending listing — and neither holds one. The plans live inside the two brochure PDFs only, and there is no 360-degree tour link either. So every layout card on this page is text, by necessity and not by choice. And one thing that does not exist and should be said as a credit rather than a gap: there is no ethnic-allocation price field on ANY surface of this project. Not in either filed generation, not in either brochure, not on the register, not on a portal. So that whole family of findings cannot arise here, and saying there is nothing to withhold is a different statement from withholding something.

Portals and press — what each gets wrong, and the one thing each gets right

Two live records of one portal for one project, under two spellings. One /condo/ record names it in the singular and the other in the plural, they disagree on the completion date (01 January 2028 against “N/A”, while the same portal’s /new-launches/ record for the same project says 2029), and all three carry placeholder data tables — 0 units and RM 0 psf — against their own prose. This series has logged a two-record trap on another portal nine times; two live records of the SAME portal path form for one scheme is new. Fetch every id and every spelling, and trust none of the data tables. The developer field is named two different ways by the same portal. The /condo/ records carry Suntrack Development Sdn. Bhd., the LICENSEE — the twelfth confirmation in this series that this path form carries the licensee on a high-rise — while the /new-launches/ record carries “Suntrack Group”, which is a BRAND WITH NO LEGAL EXISTENCE: no entity of that name is published anywhere, and this page does not create a developer tag for it. The worst single error in circulation, and it would mislead a buyer about their contract. One portal markets this 27-storey strata condominium under a URL and a heading reading “6 Houses for Sale”. A landed label on a Schedule H strata scheme tells a buyer they have Schedule G, a 24-month delivery period and an individual title. They have Schedule H, a 36-month period and strata. That is why this page is tagged as a condominium and a new launch and NEVER as landed. The same portal contradicts itself on facilities inside one record — its prose lists a pool, a gym and a surau that its own facility tags omit, while its tags add a multipurpose hall its prose omits — and its project price ceiling disagrees with its own highest listed unit. All of its figures are withheld on this page, for the reason the disclosure below gives. What each source gets RIGHT, because this is not a scoreboard. One portal is the ONLY consumer record anywhere that carries the full filed street address, including the section number. The bed-and-bath range 3–5 and 2–4 is genuinely valuable and nobody else publishes it — it corroborates the register’s own ranges. The press records carry the 900 mm clear-opening specification, the 4.49 acres and the GDV with a date and an author’s name attached, and a named photographer’s four photographs are the best identification evidence that exists for this building — which is exactly why they are not published here: they are a publisher’s own copyrighted work, and one of them is a photograph of a third party’s clubhouse across the road. One press figure is carried on this page with its publisher named rather than the developer: “about 8 km from Shah Alam city centre” — the only distance-to-the-city figure any source gives, and the developer’s own 28-row table does not contain it. And two routes that returned nothing, recorded so the record is complete: one property portal returned a server error throughout, another portal’s new-property path returned a client error, and the two collapse into one publisher anyway; the industry contractor register holds no record for this project; and no portal or publisher id used anywhere on this page was guessed — every one came from a search result.

What this page does not publish, and why

This page withholds four classes of figure, and it names each one so that the withholding does not read as concealment. (1) The restricted family, as a matter of standing instruction. Nothing on this page carries a discount, a rebate, a nett price, a promotion of any kind, a commission figure, a freebie, an incentive, a leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate, or a return projection. And one line of genuine credit: there is NO ethnic-allocation price field — no Bumiputera-allocation figure — on ANY surface of this project. Not in either filed generation, not in either developer brochure, not on the register, not on a portal. So on this project there is nothing of that kind to withhold at all, and saying so is a different statement from withholding something. (2) Three families of below-minimum figure, all three withheld — and the KIND of each one matters, because they mean different things. KIND ONE: a launch-era DEVELOPER band whose lower end sits below the filed statutory minimum of RM666,000, carried by TWO GENUINELY INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS — two separate media groups, which do not collapse into one another. The figures are withheld in full and must not be reinstated; what is publishable is that the discrepancy exists, that two independent publishers carry it, and that the likeliest explanation is a launch-generation price list left standing against a later filing — a reading the gross-development-value arithmetic above independently supports. KIND TWO: agent asking prices on ONE publisher’s listing pages, below the filed statutory minimum. That publisher and its sister site are ONE publisher, so this is a single-publisher discrepancy and it is weaker than a multi-publisher one — which is how it is described. And it is NOT the unremarkable case of resale asking prices on a completed building: this building is at a 20.00% band, so these are primary-market asking figures put up by agents on a scheme that is one-fifth built. All of them are withheld. KIND THREE: a figure embedded in a CONTENT-MANAGEMENT ASSET TITLE on the developer’s own host. One asset in the project microsite’s media library has a title of the form per-square-foot figure plus a date; multiplied by the smallest filed built-up of 1,098 sq ft that figure yields a price BELOW the filed statutory minimum. So the title itself is non-publishable: the figure is withheld, the title is not reproduced, and the asset is refused from this page’s image set on that ground alone. What IS published, and it is the only price on this page: the statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum, RM666,000 – RM1,346,000, as both filed generations, both developer brochures and the register all print it, identically and to the sen. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. And the announced gross development value of RM173.36 million is published WITH its arithmetic rather than repeated as a fact, because RM173.36m ÷ 269 units = RM644,461, which is below the filed minimum and therefore belongs to a superseded generation. (3) Figures that no source publishes. This page carries no contractor, no commencement date, no landowner, no lot or PT number, no mukim, no total car-park bay count, no lift count, no carpark-building storey count, no HDA status for the filed retail space, no as-at date for the unsold-unit figure, no maintenance charge, no sinking-fund rate, no gross floor area, no share-unit allocation, no QLASSIC score and no interest restriction in either direction. Each of those is listed above with the reason it is missing, and the reasons differ: some lines are not printed on a filed document that otherwise exists and is readable, some fields are empty on the register, and some things are published by nobody at all. (4) Distances and imagery nobody can source. Twenty-eight distances ARE published by the developer and they are reproduced here with that origin attached and with the basis stated as undefined, because the developer does not state it — and the one row that appears in the English brochure but not the Malay one is flagged where it appears. Where no source publishes a figure, this page publishes none: there is no rail figure here and no station is named, because NOBODY names one. And three images are published where five more could have been: the five are from the same art package as the three, but their attribution to this project rests on convergence rather than on a printed caption, so they are not published here. Nothing on this page is estimated, converted, rounded or read across from another project — not from this developer’s five other registrations, not from the township’s master developer, and not from any other Shah Alam or Alam Impian page on this site. And one line on what this page is for. Every figure above is traced to a named published source and dated to the day it was read. Where two sources disagree, both are printed and the disagreement is named rather than resolved. Marketing information compiled from public records: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.

Erat Residence @ Alam Impian — the questions, answered from the filed record

Also worth seeing

Published 13 October 2026 · last verified 13 October 2026 against the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register project record 9760-6, the licensee record for developer code 9760 and the full serial walk 9760-1 to 9760-7; both live generations of the filed statutory advertisement on the KPKT HIMS file server; the developer’s own English and Malay brochures, corporate site, project microsite and awards page; GreenRE’s four certification tiers and its Bronze certification-entry list; and LPHS Selangor’s controlled-price project list dated 10 September 2026. Marketing information, not an offer.