UNITED POINT RESIDENCE, Jalan Lang Emas, Taman Sri Sinar, 52100 Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP KUALA LUMPUR — a COMPLETED Pangsapuri Suite under Jadual H: 2,509 units in three 38-storey blocks, CCC 19 December 2019 — and registered as PUSAT PERDAGANGAN BERPADU, a trade-centre name on a registration that holds nothing but homes, under register code 14325-1

Nine things about United Point Residence that nobody else prints

This is a completed building with a live resale market, so the page a buyer actually needs is not a brochure — it is the register, read carefully, with the gaps named. On this project the register itself is the whole statutory record, and it is filed under a name that hides the project rather than finding it.

The unit types, as three publishers describe them — and the three ways their descriptions disagree

There is no filed advertisement for this project, so there is no statutory built-up schedule, no filed bedroom or bathroom count and no filed car-park allocation. Every figure in this section is a marketing figure and is attributed to the publisher that prints it. There is also no floor plan on any reachable host anywhere, and the developer publishes none — so every panel below says in words what a plan would have shown, and none of them carries an image. That is deliberate. Read the three disagreements first: the number of types, the missing 2-bedroom type, and the fact that only ONE type anywhere has a built-up attached to it.

No built-up, bedroom count, bathroom count or car-park allocation on this project has ever been filed with KPKT, because no statutory advertisement has ever been filed for it. The register’s own keluasan: 1,206 — labelled mps and identical on all three rows — is evidently the marketed MAXIMUM in square FEET, not an area in square metres and not a per-row built-up; it is quoted as a register value and nothing is computed from it. No price, rent or per-square-foot figure for any type appears anywhere on this page. Marketing information, not an offer.

Why there are no renders on this page

No images from the developer’s marketing are reproduced here. A render is drawn to sell. It is not something the developer is contractually bound to build, and there is nothing in it you can check against a document.

Ask for these three in writing instead: the approved building plan, the unit layout with its stated built-up area, and the specification schedule attached to the sale and purchase agreement. Those bind the developer. A render does not.

Jalan Lang Emas, Taman Sri Sinar, 52100 Kuala Lumpur — and a locality four surfaces disagree about

The street is the one part of the address nobody disputes: Jalan Lang Emas, Taman Sri Sinar, agreed by five surfaces. The locality is not. The developer’s own audited annual report says KEPONG; the project folder and four portals say SEGAMBUT; StarProperty’s own URL path says kepong while its text says Segambut; and every portal prints the postcode 52100, which is not one of Segambut’s. Here is the reassuring part, and it is worth reading before the disagreement worries you: the district, the local authority and the foreign-buyer threshold are IDENTICAL whichever label is right. It is Daerah Kuala Lumpur, it is DBKL, and the floor is RM1,000,000 either way. This page is filed under Segambut because that is where the project folder and four portals put it; the Kepong finding is printed here in the body rather than hidden in a second label. Separately: the developer publishes NOT ONE measured distance for this project, so every figure below belongs to a named publisher.

KPKT register: PUSAT PERDAGANGAN BERPADU, register code 14325-1

This is the only statutory surface that exists for United Point Residence. iklan: [] and brochure: null; every constructed path in the ministry’s document store returns a client error against a positive control that resolved in the same session; the alternative path form cannot be constructed at all, because there is no application serial to build it from; and the developer publishes no statutory panel, no advertising-permit page and no brochure on any host that could be reached. So: NO statutory advertisement has ever been filed for this project. That is the third of the three states a filing can be in — filed and readable, filed but image-only, never filed — and this page says which one it is, because “never filed” and “filed but unreadable” are different claims about different facts. The consequence is that the usual three-way comparison on this site — the filing against the register against the developer’s own panel — is impossible here. One surface exists. Everything in the table below is a field on 14325-1, quoted with its own key.

Read 14 October 2026 from the public KPKT register, twice: once for the values and once expressly to establish the key inventory, because on this project the absences are the finding. Fields that do NOT exist on this record: mukim, poskod, bandar, lot, pegangan (tenure), pbt, any plan-approval field, any Lewat or Lancar field, and any field containing sekatan or bebanan. A missing key is a different thing from an empty value, and this page distinguishes them throughout.

The three price bands above are PUBLIC REGISTRY figures taken from the register’s own hargaMin and hargaMax fields on register code 14325-1. They are NOT a filed statutory advertisement band — no statutory advertisement has ever existed for this project — and they are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. They are per registered component, not per unit, and they are the developer-era registered range, not a statement about any price available today. For the price of a specific unit, the only real sources are the current owner’s own written figure and the sale and purchase agreement. Ask Louis and he will get it in writing.

The registered name is the whole problem, and the register’s own fields are the whole answer

The scheme is registered as PUSAT PERDAGANGAN BERPADU — “united trade centre” — and the licensee is IDP INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. A buyer who checks KPKT and finds a trade-centre name held by a company with “industrial development” in its title may reasonably fear they bought something other than a home. They did not, and the register says so in its own fields: pjb.jenis reads Jadual H with tempohAsal 36 Bulan, and the component type on all three rows reads Pangsapuri Suite. Three residential rows, 735 + 887 + 887 = 2,509 homes, and not one unit of any other kind registered under this code. Showing you that, from the register’s own fields, with the code printed so you can repeat the check yourself, is the single most useful thing this page does. Neither word of the marketing name survives in the register: no United, no Point, no Residensi, no Residence. The only word shared with any portal is Berpadu. And the searches themselves mislead before you know the code: q=UNITED returns fifteen real licensed developers and none is this one; q=BERPADU returns one real licensed developer in Kinta, Perak, which is not this company; q=UOA, the brand every portal prints, returns zero KPKT developers. Use 14325-1 and licence 14325/04-2028/0055(R), and nothing else. One honest correction this page owes its own readers: an earlier Segambut page on this site repeated the portals’ bracketed “Residensi Berpadu” as if it were the registered name. It is not. The register says PUSAT PERDAGANGAN BERPADU, and that correction has been written back into this site’s own research notes rather than quietly left standing.

Nothing was ever filed — and which of the three states that is

iklan: []. brochure: null. Three constructed document paths in the ministry’s filing store, all returning a client error, against a positive control for an unrelated project that resolved in the same session — so the store was up, and the answer here is ABSENT and not UNREACHABLE. The alternative path form cannot be constructed at all, because iklan: [] leaves no application serial to build one from. A filing can be in one of three states: filed and readable; filed but image-only and therefore unquotable; or never filed. This project is in the third state, and the page’s credibility rests on saying which, because the three states license completely different sentences. There is nothing here that is present-but-unreadable: no bad scan is standing between you and a document, because there is no document. What that costs you, item by item: the filed building type; the statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum; the filed built-up schedule; the filed car-park allocation; Pegangan Tanah and any lease expiry; Sekatan Kepentingan; Bebanan Tanah and any chargee; Pihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan and No. Kelulusan Pelan; Keluasan Tanah; the lot or PT number; the fixture schedule; Baki Unit; the consultants; the facilities schedule; and the project’s own filed address and postcode. And one credit that comes with it, which is also real: because the developer publishes no statutory panel either, the whole family of panel faults this site keeps finding elsewhere — a stale filing generation, a permit number sitting in a licence field, a fabricated validity date, a price panel below the filed minimum — cannot arise on this project at all.

The delivery record: 524 days inside, 207 days past, on an extension nobody markets

The first sale and purchase agreement was dated 26 May 2016, so vacant possession fell due 26 May 2019 on the 36-month Jadual H clock. The register then records pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 24 Bulan and tempohPembinaanBaharu: 60 Bulan — an approved extension taking the construction period from 36 to 60 months and the governing contractual date to 26 May 2021. The CCC issued on 19 December 2019. Publish all three facts together, because any one of them alone is misleading. The good half: 524 days inside the date that governed is among the most comfortable margins this site has recorded, and the developer used only about seven of the twenty-four extension months it had been granted. The other half: the CCC is 207 days PAST the date the first purchasers actually signed for. And the disclosure half: the extension, the original date and the governing date exist ONLY in the register — no developer surface, no annual report and no portal mentions any of the three. vp reads a bare -, so the actual vacant-possession dates are not in the register; the CCC is the only hard delivery date on this project, and the developer’s audited report adds only the sentence “The residential units have been delivered to the purchasers”, which is a statement and not a date. One more completion wrinkle, flagged and not resolved: the register’s CCC is 19 December 2019, the portals say “completion 2019”, and the developer’s own audited report says the project was completed “during financial year 2020”. StarProperty’s own completion field is blank.

The permit record: one clear credit, one 365-day interval, and no adjudication

The register exposes two advertising and sales permit generations: 14325-1/04-2018/0284(P) running 28 April 2016 to 27 April 2018, and 14325-1/04-2020/01731(P) running 28 April 2019 to 27 April 2020. The credit first, and it is real: permit 1 begins 28 days BEFORE the first SPA. Selling began under a valid permit. Both permit numbers also reconstruct correctly from their own month-and-year segments — the 2018 number ends 27 April 2018 and the 2020 number ends 27 April 2020 — so there is no spliced serial, no transplanted number, no fabricated validity and no placeholder anywhere in this record. After the number of projects on which that has not been true, a permit field that is simply internally consistent deserves the mention. Now the interval: 28 April 2018 to 27 April 2019 — 365 days — is covered by no permit the register shows, and it falls inside the selling period, between the first SPA of 26 May 2016 and the CCC of 19 December 2019. There are exactly two readings and nothing in the record chooses between them. Either a generation is missing from the record’s own permit array — which holds exactly one historical row on this project, where sibling records in the same group hold three each, so a thin array is demonstrably possible — or no permit was in force for a year while the development was still being sold. This page states the interval, states both readings and adjudicates NEITHER, because the record does not. Separately, and importantly: the fact that both permits have now LAPSED is not a defect. The second expired 130 days after the CCC. An advertising and sales permit is a permit to advertise and sell a housing development; on a building completed in December 2019 and marked sold out, its lapse is the expected state and carries no adverse inference at all. Both permits carry the (P) suffix, so there is no landed-versus-strata tail to read from them, and the suffix-mismatch trap that recurs elsewhere on this site cannot arise here, because there is no second surface printing a suffix.

Tenure, restriction in interest and chargee — the three answers this page will not invent

TENURE. The register has no tenure key at all, verified against its complete key inventory; there is no filed advertisement; and neither of the developer group’s audited annual reports states it, because the table that would carry tenure, land area and net book value sits beyond the reachable text layer of those documents. Five marketing surfaces, reducing to three publishers, say the project is freehold. Not one statutory or audited document says anything. So this page states NO tenure. It does not print freehold as a filed fact and it does not print a lease expiry, because there is no expiry on the public record to print. The honest line is: every consumer source says one thing, nothing filed or audited says anything, and the only way to know is a title search. In this corner of Kuala Lumpur the tenure genuinely varies from street to street — two other completed developments on this site a few kilometres away have 99-year leases filed on their own records — so the blank cannot be filled by analogy either. RESTRICTION IN INTEREST. There is no filed advertisement and no sekatan key in the register, so the restriction in interest CANNOT BE READ. That is not the same statement as “none is filed”, and this page will not paraphrase a restriction it has not seen. CHARGEE. No bebanan field exists in any filing, because there is no filing, and no such key exists in the register. No bank is named by any source read. LOT, PT NUMBER AND MUKIM. None exists on any reachable surface: no filing, no register key, no land announcement reached, and no annual-report property table within reach. Two sibling records in this corridor are filed in Mukim Batu, but neither of them is this site, so the mukim here is UNESTABLISHED. The answer is “ask for a title search”, not “Mukim Batu”.

Foreign buyers: both halves, because either half alone misleads

This is Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP Kuala Lumpur, under Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, so the Federal Territory foreign-buyer floor of RM1,000,000 applies — strata and landed alike, with consent routed through the Economic Planning Unit, under the Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah effective 13 July 2022. Selangor’s zone thresholds do not apply here and are not carried onto this page. And one reassuring consequence of the locality dispute: Segambut and Kepong are both inside the Federal Territory, so the disagreement about the locality does not change the threshold by a single ringgit. Part one: at the registered statutory prices, ZERO of the 2,509 units ever reached the floor. The dearest registered unit tops out at RM943,160 — 94.32% of the floor, missing it by RM56,840. The other two rows top out at 82.63% and 86.34%. There is no straddle and no undeterminable band: at registered prices the whole development sat below the threshold, and by the narrowest margin this site has recorded. Part two, and it matters more on a completed building than on a launch: the threshold bites on the acquisition price of the transaction in front of the buyer, not on the developer’s original band. Whether any individual resale today reaches RM1,000,000 is NOT DETERMINABLE from any source read — and with the dearest registered unit only 5.68% below the floor, that is a live question here rather than a formality. A page that printed only part one would mislead a foreign enquirer against their own interest; one that printed only part two would mislead them in the developer’s favour. Both are printed. The title question is separate and cannot be answered: the restriction in interest is not obtainable, so the right sentence is “the restriction cannot be read”, never “there is no restriction”. Not one of the sources read mentions the threshold at all.

The retail complex is the group’s own investment property — so its absence from the register is the EXPECTED result

The registered scheme name itself names it: Pusat Perdagangan means trade or commercial centre. And the developer’s own audited annual report for 2020 settles its position in one sentence, verbatim: the complex “forms part of the Group’s investment properties” and is “currently being filled up by various tenants”. It is retained and let by the group, not sold to purchasers. Nothing in it was ever offered to a buyer — so it is correctly outside the Housing Development Act, and its absence from the housing register is not a gap at all. It is the expected and correct result. That is the single most reassuring finding on this project and it comes from an audited source, which is why it is stated loudly rather than buried. The register agrees mechanically: the serial walk ends at a client error on 14325-2 and bilanganProjek reads 1, so there is no second registration hiding a retail phase. What is still NOT known about the complex: its lettable area; its tenancy mix beyond “various tenants”; whether any part of it was ever strata-titled or sold later; its own completion date; whether the retail name one portal gives it is the developer’s own; and whether the 2,509 figure includes or excludes anything in it — the audited wording “2,509 units of residences ALONG WITH a commercial complex” says it excludes, and that is the only statement there is. This page is therefore NOT filed under a retail or trade category, and it does not describe the development as anything but residential: there is nothing in the complex offered for sale, and the registration contains nothing but homes.

The locality is contested, and the contest changes nothing about your legal position

The street is agreed by five surfaces: Jalan Lang Emas, Taman Sri Sinar. The locality is not agreed by anybody. The developer’s own audited annual report — the only audited source that names a locality at all — says “United Point Residence is located in Kepong”. The project folder and four portals file it under SEGAMBUT. StarProperty’s own URL path says kepong while its page text says Segambut. One portal’s address line says Segambut while its own description says “Kepong District”. A rental platform gives a fourth locality string altogether, and contradicts itself between its heading and its body on the street name. And “North Kiara” is a marketing alias, which one source states in terms. The sharpest single piece of evidence is the postcode, and it cuts against the portals’ own label: every portal prints 52100, and 52100 is not one of Segambut’s postcodes. What the register settles is the district and the authority and nothing else: projek.daerah: Kuala Lumpur, projek.negeri: Wp Kuala Lumpur, therefore Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, Federal Territory jurisdiction. The register has no mukim, no bandar and no poskod key, so it cannot settle the locality at all; and there is no filed plan-approval prefix to read, because there is no filing. Here is the part that matters to a buyer: the district, the local authority and the RM1,000,000 foreign-buyer floor are IDENTICAL whichever label is correct, because Segambut and Kepong are both inside the Federal Territory. The disagreement does not change your position by anything. This page is filed under Segambut because that is where the project folder and four portals put it and where clients search; the Kepong finding is printed here in the body rather than hidden in a second label.

No green certification, no award, no quality score — and the developer claims none

There is no GreenRE row for this project, for its registered name, for the portals’ invented name or for its licensee in any reachable part of that register, read 14 October 2026. The negative rests on four legs and the page states which: first, a clean close across the whole Platinum tier; second — and this is the leg that does the work — two certification-entry lists whose windows both span 2014 to 2025 and therefore cover this project’s entire construction period, with no entry for this licensee or its group in either; third, the developer’s own audited enumeration excluding it; and fourth, no green claim by anybody. The three lower tier tables were TRUNCATED on reading and add nothing for a project of this vintage, so they are not cited as if they did. GBI is a different answer: that register did not respond, so the GBI position is INCONCLUSIVE and is never written as a negative. The developer’s own audited 2025 report lists four green-certified buildings across the whole group, and United Point is not among them; in that report this project appears exactly once, in a waste-management indicator, as a managed asset rather than a certified one. What the project does have is a process, not a certification: the developer’s audited 2020 report names it in its own environmental-initiative tables — sub-metering, a smoke-free zone, centralised air-conditioning, refrigerant and clean agents, rainwater harvesting, water-efficient landscaping and water-efficient fittings on the retail side, a durable aluminium formwork system on the residential side, and construction-stage earthworks, soil-stabilisation, pollution, noise and waste controls — plus an owners’ portal deployed in July 2020. That is publishable as exactly what it is: the developer says it applied these measures. It is NOT a certification, NOT an award and NOT third-party assessed, and this page does not dress it up. AWARDS: none for this project from anybody. The group’s awards are corporate, at company level, and not one of them may be borrowed onto a project page. One audited sentence calls a different township of the group’s “award winning” without naming the award or its issuer; that must not and does not appear here in any form. QLASSIC: no score for this project from anybody. The developer’s own 2025 report carries a group target with a performance value of N/A, explained in its own note by there being no qualifying completion that year. That is a group target with no project-level score, and it is not a QLASSIC result for this building. No rating, certification, award or score from any other project by this group — or from any neighbouring development with a similar name — appears anywhere on this page.

Why this page carries no image, stated plainly

Exactly one image of this development exists on any reachable host anywhere: 450 by 301 pixels, with an empty alt-text field, an empty caption field, and no printed caption anywhere on the host that serves it. Nothing identifies its subject — not a tower, not a facade, not a pool, not a facility, not an interior, not a view and not the retail complex. In the same library sits its near-twin: a different development about twenty kilometres away, uploaded seventy-two seconds later, at identical pixel dimensions, under an identical naming convention, with no alt text and no caption either. The only things separating the two are a title field and a parent record id. A pick by filename, by dimensions, by folder or by date would hand you the wrong project. So the project is CONFIRMED on that asset and the SUBJECT is not. A subject that can only be inferred is not a publishable caption on this site, and 450 by 301 is in any case below this layout’s threshold — there is no larger version, because that upload is the original. This page therefore ships with NO imagery at all: no hero gallery, no project gallery, and every floor-plan panel saying in words what it would have shown. It is the eighth page on this site to ship thin rather than caption a guess, and that discipline is exactly what makes every other caption here worth trusting. And the broader absence, which is the real finding: the developer publishes no gallery, no floor plan, no site plan and no location map for this completed development. Its own project record is empty — an empty body, empty custom fields, one attached image and nothing else — and its marketing host carries four pages in total, none of them a statutory panel. The only route to a real plan or a real gallery is Louis’s own project folder or the management corporation, and that is also the only plausible route to the tenure, the lot number, the mukim and the car-park allocation. Nothing has been substituted: no photograph of Segambut, of Kepong, of a station, of the retail complex, and nothing at all from any other development by this group or from any neighbouring page on this site.

The group development value: a figure for two projects, which cannot be split — but the sanity check passes

The developer’s audited 2020 report gives a combined gross development value of RM3.00 billion for TWO projects — this one and a second development of the group’s elsewhere in Kuala Lumpur. The listed parent’s own audited report gives the same two projects as AUD 966.56 million, with no exchange rate in either document. A development value stated for two things cannot be split between them, so this page does not apportion it, does not attribute it to this project and does not divide it by 2,509. What can be done honestly is a bracketing check, and it is worth printing as a consistency finding rather than as an apportionment. This project’s registry minima multiply out to about RM1.424 billion and its maxima to about RM2.192 billion; the sibling project’s equivalents, from this site’s own research on that project, are about RM1.124 billion and RM1.838 billion. Together the two developments bracket RM2.548 billion to RM4.030 billion. The audited RM3.00 billion sits inside that bracket, which is exactly where a real combined figure for both schemes should sit. It corroborates that the figure covers both projects and nothing else — and it does NOT license splitting it. Note also that the two audited figures cannot be reconciled with each other without an exchange rate that neither report gives.

Not published, therefore not on this page

The tenure as a filed or audited fact, and the lease expiry if it is leasehold. The restriction in interest, which cannot be READ — not “none is filed”. The chargee. The lot or PT number. The mukim. The plan-approval reference. A filed project address or postcode. Which of the two 887-unit register rows is Blok A and which is Blok B — and therefore which statutory price band governs which tower. Any filed built-up, car-park allocation, bedroom or bathroom schedule, or fixture schedule. The built-up of Type B or Type C, and whether a 2-bedroom type exists at all. The actual vacant-possession dates: vp reads a dash, and only the CCC is hard. The retail complex’s lettable area, tenancy mix, completion date, title position and official name. The contractor and every consultant — not one is named by any source read, and the developer’s reports describe its own construction method and its own owners’ portal and name nobody else. The land area as anything other than one portal’s figure. The development value for this project alone. The licensee’s company registration number, which no statutory, audited or portal source prints. Any measured distance from the developer. Any facility’s level — no source assigns any facility to any floor. A floor plan, a site plan, a facilities plan, a location map or a captioned gallery. Any hospital distance; any secondary, international or Chinese-medium school. The service charge and sinking fund as a developer-stated figure. Whether the statutory housing development account for this registration has been closed, and what became of the advertising-permit obligations after the CCC. Whether any resale in this building has ever reached the RM1,000,000 Federal Territory floor. A quality-assessment score, any award, and any GBI position. Louis will go and ask for every item on this list rather than estimate one of them.

Facilities: no filed schedule exists, and the three published lists do not agree

There is no filed facilities schedule for this project, because there is no filed advertisement — so no facility is assigned to a level by anybody, nothing can be checked as shell space, and the strongest grade a security claim can have, a filed security schedule, is simply unavailable here. Every item below belongs to the portal that prints it. Items on which two or three publishers agree, and the only ones worth leading with: a swimming pool, a wading or kiddie pool, a gymnasium, a jacuzzi, a barbecue area, a multi-purpose hall and a playground. Items that appear on exactly ONE surface and are attributed to it rather than to the developer: a 50 m infinity pool, a sky garden, a linear garden, a sports court, a badminton hall, a reflexology path, a lounge, an aqua gymnasium, a facilities deck, a pool deck, function halls, a surau and 24-hour security. The spread itself is the finding: four items on StarProperty, thirteen on one portal’s own list, five more in that same portal’s prose, and seven on a new-home listing portal. The developer publishes no facilities list at all — its project record is empty — so not one item above may be attributed to the developer, and this page attributes none. One structural figure is published and is correctly labelled by its own publisher: 3 acres of FACILITIES area. That figure must never be used as a density denominator, and it is not used as one here.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis Koh is a registered estate agent with IQI Realty Sdn Bhd, and his firm’s own project materials carry commercially restricted terms that may never be made public. So this page carries no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion or incentive package, no commission figure, and no Bumiputera allocation figure — not one of those appears anywhere on it, in either language. It also carries no yield, return-on-investment or rental-return FIGURE of any kind. This is a completed building with an active resale and letting market, so figures of that family are easy to find elsewhere and are refused here in full. The one price family that IS published is the three public registry bands from the KPKT register’s own hargaMin and hargaMax fields on register code 14325-1, labelled a REGISTRY band and expressly NOT a filed statutory advertisement band, because no statutory advertisement has ever existed for this project — and never a price list, never a quotation and never an offer. Six specific items exist elsewhere and are withheld here, and the page names which kind each one is, because the kind is the point. One: a purchaser inducement stated as a term of sale on a single publisher’s project page. Its EXISTENCE is recorded; its CONTENT is withheld in full. It is the only item of that class on this project and it sits on a portal, not in a filing — because the developer publishes nothing at all. Two: a new-home listing portal prints a price expressly framed as being before a price adjustment of the kind named above, together with a maintenance rate. That framing makes every price figure on that surface unusable under the house rule, so it is withheld in full; the maintenance rate would be publishable in principle, but it sits on the same surface, so all this page records is that one portal publishes a maintenance rate. Three: a resale asking floor that sits BELOW the register’s lowest minimum, and a rental “from” figure, on one publisher. Both withheld — and the kind matters: these are RESALE and LETTING figures on a building completed nearly seven years ago, which is unremarkable and is not a developer figure at all. Saying so is the point, because a bare “withheld” would read as concealing a defect that does not exist. Four: a developer-era launch price expressed per square foot, on one publisher. Withheld on two independent grounds: it cannot be reconciled against a per-unit registry band without a built-up pairing, and the only type with a published built-up is the 667 sq ft Type A; and applied to that smallest type it would sit below the registry minimum, which under the house rule is recorded as a discrepancy and never printed as a figure. Five: a rental-performance statistic on a rental platform writing about its own market. Withheld; existence recorded. Six: a characterisation of what the car-park bays cost. The ALLOCATION is published above and attributed; the cost characterisation is a package claim and is withheld. And the clean half, which is worth as much as the warnings: across sixteen surfaces read — including two audited annual reports, the listed parent’s audited report, the developer’s own marketing host and five portals — there is no leaseback structure, no guaranteed rental-return structure and no ethnic-allocation field of any kind on this project. There is no filed advertisement that could ever have carried such a field, so that line of the check does not arise here at all. That is a credit and it is stated as one. For the price of a specific unit there is one real source: the current owner’s written figure and the sale and purchase agreement. Ask Louis, and he will get it in writing.

United Point Residence — frequently asked questions

Other Kuala Lumpur pages built the same way — and nothing crosses between them

Published 15 October 2026 · last verified 15 October 2026 · registers read 14 October 2026. Sources: the public KPKT TEDUH register developer record for code 14325 and the project record 14325-1, read twice — once for the values and once expressly for the key inventory — with the serial walk continued to a client error on 14325-2; forty developer-search strings run against a same-session positive control; the ministry’s document store in every constructible path form, each returning a client error against a positive control that resolved; the Federal Territories’ own affordable-housing register; the GreenRE certification register across all four tiers plus a certification-entry list read at two offsets, both windows spanning 2014–2025; two of the developer group’s own AUDITED annual reports and its listed parent’s audited annual report, including both corporate-structure charts; and the named portal and publisher records cited above. No figure, acreage, distance, rating, award or image on this page comes from any other development, any other licensee, any other project by this group, or any neighbouring page on this site. · This page carries no imagery at all, deliberately: one 450 × 301 asset exists anywhere and its subject is unidentifiable. · Marketing information, not an offer. Confirm every figure against the register, the title and a current valuation before you commit.