THE MAPLE RESIDENCES, Taman OUG (Taman Overseas Union), Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP KUALA LUMPUR — a COMPLETED freehold Jadual H CONDOMINIUM: 940 units in Blok A, B and C, CCC and register vacant possession both 30 May 2025 — registered as Residensi Mapel OUG, with Maple respelled Mapel, under register code 14379-2, and with an advertising permit that LAPSED on 8 September 2025

It is FINISHED. The KPKT register records a Certificate of Completion and Compliance of 30 May 2025 and a register vacant-possession date of 30 May 2025, on all three component rows of register code 14379-2, with peratusSiap 100.00 and a status of Siap Dengan CCC. As at 15 October 2026 the building has been complete for about sixteen and a half months.

You will not learn that from the developer’s own page. wctland.com.my publishes no completion date and no status at all — its “Property Status” field reads Freehold Condominium, which is a tenure and a built form rather than a status. And the single third-party publisher says “under construction” in its body text while its own KPKT panel on the same page prints Siap Dengan CCC — one publisher contradicting itself on one page.

So the register is the source, and this page prints the code so you can repeat the check.

Yes, it has lapsed. The register’s current advertising and sales permit record for this registration is 14379-2/09-2025/0642(R)-(S), which ran 9 September 2024 to 8 September 2025. No later permit record exists, and as at 15 October 2026 that is 403 days ago.

Credit the record first, because it is good: permit cover was CONTINUOUS across five years of selling. Four consecutive records butt end to end from 9 September 2020 to 8 September 2025 with not one uncovered day, and the first sale and purchase agreement fell about three months AFTER the first permit took effect, which is the right order.

The honest reading of the lapse is not a scandal. An advertising and sales permit authorises advertising and selling a development under construction; the CCC issued about three months before the last permit expired, and on a completed building there is nothing left to permit. But 288 of 940 units were recorded unsold at the two latest readings, so stock IS being marketed, and this page does not pretend to resolve that tension. Why no permit has been issued since September 2025 is a question for KPKT or the developer.

And do not confuse the two instruments: the developer’s LICENCE 14379/09-2027/0809(A) is live to 8 September 2027. A live licence is not a live permit.

It is registered as Residensi Mapel OUG — with Maple spelled Mapel. One letter transposed: the English brand word respelled into Malay orthography, with Residences becoming Residensi and the locality OUG unchanged. That is the name that will appear on your sale and purchase agreement and on your loan documents.

And the reason you cannot find it: a KPKT developer search on MAPLE returns THREE real licensed developers and not one of them is this project’s — a ten-project licensee in Melaka Tengah, one in Seberang Perai and one in Muar. Searching MAPEL would not help either, because the register’s search endpoint looks at DEVELOPER names only. There is no project-name search on the register at all.

Use the code instead: register code 14379-2 on licence 14379/09-2027/0809(A), developer code 14379. That is the only route that works, and it is why this page prints the code beside every figure on it.

You would be contracting with WCT OUG DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD., KPKT developer code 14379 — and the developer’s own project page never names that company once.

Every WCT marketing surface for this project names WCT Land Sdn Bhd: the enquiry-consent text names it, the footer reads “© 2026 WCT LAND”. WCT Land Sdn Bhd holds NO KPKT developer licence at all.

Neither half is dishonest and both matter. WCT Land is the brand and the marketing entity; WCT OUG Development Sdn Bhd is the licensee, the vendor on the Jadual H contract, the holder of the section 7A housing development account and the party every statutory remedy runs against. The two are joined by the register itself: the licensee’s own business address on the register matches WCT Land’s published head office exactly.

One caution on the company number. The filed advertisement prints it 14216-V in its body and 14216-VJ in its own header — two spellings in one document — and no second surface prints a registration number for this licensee at all. Ask for it in writing before you sign anything.

It is a CONDOMINIUM, on five agreeing surfaces, and the distinction is not cosmetic.

• the register’s own jenisBangunan: Rumah Pangsa/Kondo, one type for the whole registration
• the filed advertisement’s Jenis Hartanah: Kondominium (FASA R4)
• the developer’s own fact strip: Freehold Condominium
• the single third-party publisher: Condominium (highrise, residential)
• the contract schedule: Jadual H, strata residential under the Housing Development Act

Why it matters here more than usual: another registration on this very licence IS filed Pangsapuri Servis — a serviced apartment — about 89 metres away by this page’s own arithmetic on the register’s coordinate pairs. One licence, one masterplan, two different filed product classes. A serviced-apartment label on this project would misstate the filed type, and nothing from the neighbouring registration’s classification is read onto this one here.

This page cannot tell you the utility tariff or the assessment rate for your specific parcel; the filed type is what it can tell you, and that is what it does.

Because there are two LEGALLY FILED bands and they answer different questions.

• The KPKT register’s component bands are the LAUNCH band: RM643,000 – RM1,151,150 on Blok A, RM696,000 – RM1,209,800 on Blok B, RM1,262,700 – RM1,664,050 on Blok C — RM643,000 – RM1,664,050 across the development.
• The filed advertisement dated 8 August 2024 is the REMAINING-STOCK band at that date: RM765,900 – RM1,151,150 on Blok A, RM803,850 – RM1,209,800 on Blok B, RM1,262,700 – RM1,664,050 on Blok C — RM765,900 – RM1,664,050.

Every maximum is identical to the sen. Two minima rose — Blok A by RM122,900 and Blok B by RM107,850 — and Blok C’s did not move at all.

The filed unsold-unit field explains exactly that, and it is corroborated rather than merely plausible: Blok A had 27 of its 303 units left and Blok B 74 of 295, so the cheap stock was gone; Blok C had 187 of 342 — more than half the block — so its cheapest unit was still available and its minimum stayed where the register put it.

Both bands are published here with their sources and their dates. Neither is published as “the price”. They are statutory and public-registry figures, stated per block rather than per unit, and they are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. A buyer facing remaining stock faces the HIGHER of the two, and the only real price for a specific unit is the developer’s current price list and the sale and purchase agreement.

Two dated readings exist and they are identical, which is precisely why this page will not give you a figure for today.

• 8 August 2024, the filed advertisement’s own Baki Unit Belum Dijual field: 288 of 940 unsold — Blok A 27, Blok B 74, Blok C 187.
• 28 August 2026, a KPKT reading published by the single third-party source: 288 of 940 unsold, 652 sold.

Two readings, two years and twenty days apart, on a building that was completed in between, giving the identical figure. Either take-up has genuinely not moved, or the statutory return has not been refreshed since the advertisement. Both are possible and neither is proved, so both readings are printed with their dates and neither is published as today’s position.

One trap worth knowing about, because it would mislead anyone reading the register directly: the register’s own component Baki field reads Tiada on all three rows, and the August 2026 reading of 288 proves Tiada cannot mean “none remaining” here. A register Tiada is never to be read as a zero.

Ask Louis for the current count, in writing, from the developer.

All three of these are true at once, and this page prints all three.

• The first sale and purchase agreement was dated 8 December 2020, so on the original 36-month period contractual vacant possession fell on 8 December 2023.
• The register records pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya with an approved extension of +23 months, taking the construction period to 59 months and the contractual date to 8 November 2025.
• The CCC issued 30 May 2025, and the register’s vacant-possession field carries the same date.

So: about 5.4 months EARLY against the extended contractual date; about 17.7 months LATE against the original date the first purchasers signed for; and about 2.9 months late against the developer’s OWN filed expectation of MARCH 2025, printed on both the filed advertisement and the e-brochure.

The disclosure point is the extension itself: it is twenty-three months, and the developer’s own page mentions neither it nor any completion date. The single third-party publisher is the only surface anywhere that discloses it, as “36 months + 23 months”. An approved extension moves the date the statutory damages clause is measured against, which is why it is the most consequential field on the record and why it is printed here.

If you bought at launch, your own position depends on your own agreement. Ask for the developer’s written late-delivery position on your specific unit.

The threshold is RM1,000,000. This is Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP Kuala Lumpur, under Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, so the Federal Territory floor applies — RM1,000,000 for Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan, strata and landed alike, under the Ministry of Economy’s Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah effective 13 July 2022, with consent routed through the EPU because Kuala Lumpur is a federal territory. National Land Code (Act 828) s.433B is also cited.

Price is the operative statutory gate here, and that is unusually clear: Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada is PRINTED on the filed advertisement, the developer’s own e-brochure independently prints Restriction in interest: NIL, and the land is freehold. A restriction in interest is the strongest foreign-buyer signal a filing carries, and here two of the developer’s own surfaces agree there is none. That finding belongs to this lot and this title only and must not be read onto any neighbouring project.

One thing here is genuinely computable from the filing alone, which is rare: Blok C’s filed band is RM1,262,700 – RM1,664,050, whose minimum is 1.26× the floor — so all 342 Blok C units sit ENTIRELY ABOVE the threshold. Blok A and Blok B both straddle it, and no per-type price table exists on any surface, so the NUMBER of Blok A and Blok B units clearing RM1,000,000 is UNKNOWABLE. This page will not estimate it.

And the caution that always applies: stating a threshold is not stating that you are eligible. EPU consent, the developer’s own terms and the financing side sit outside anything any document read for this page covers, and the threshold bites on the price of the transaction in front of you rather than on a filed band. Get a Malaysian lawyer on the consent route before you commit.

Nobody publishes a walking distance, and the two sources that publish anything disagree by 5.4 times on the same station. So this page prints both and adopts neither.

• LRT Awan Besar (SP19, Sri Petaling line) — 465 m, explicitly straight-line, from the single third-party source, which also states the site sits inside the 400 m Awan Besar transit ring.
• Awan Besar LRT Station — 2.5 km, from the developer’s own table, which never says what it measures.

465 m and 2,500 m cannot both be straight-line, and the developer does not say its figures are driving distances. There is a third piece of evidence and it is the developer’s own: WCT’s contact page addresses its property gallery on Jalan Awan Besar — the township fronts the road the station is named after. So two independent indications point to “close” and the developer’s own table is the outlier. But a sales-gallery address is not a site address, the gallery’s lot is the gallery’s, and this page does not convert any of it into a figure.

The ordering is contradicted too: the developer’s table makes Sri Petaling LRT (2.1 km) NEARER than Awan Besar (2.5 km), which both the portal’s figures and the developer’s own street address contradict.

Walk it with Louis, or ask him for a measured walking time from the actual block entrance to the station gate. That figure does not exist in public.

The developer publishes NONE — not one on-site building facility, for 940 units — and that absence is itself the finding.

Its project page lists no pool, no gym, no playground, no hall, no level schedule, no site plan and no facilities graphic. The six amenity lists on that page are NEARBY third-party amenities — schools, malls, hospitals, golf clubs — and not the building’s own. The single third-party publisher names exactly one facility, a gymnasium, and no level is named by anybody.

Four video embeds sit on the developer’s page with no titles and no labels. Their content was not viewed and NO facility has been inferred from them, because a facility inferred from an unlabelled video is not a fact.

The lift provision is published only as a fact-strip phrase, “8 Units & 8 Lifts Per Floor”, which is implausible as worded — eight lifts per floor beside eight units per floor is one lift per unit. It is most likely eight lifts in total or per block, but no lift total and no per-block figure is published anywhere, so this page quotes the words and publishes NEITHER reading.

Closed by the approved building plan, the developer’s FULL brochure — only a “simplified” one is published — or a site visit. Ask Louis.

The developer publishes six layouts: B1, B2a and B2b at 958 sq ft with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms; C1 at 1,163 sq ft and C2 at 1,152 sq ft with 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms; and D1 at 1,378 sq ft with 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. All six prices are shown as TBA.

Every one of those is a marketing figure. There is NO filed built-up schedule for this project at all — the filed advertisement contains no unit-type schedule, no type codes, no built-up areas, no bedroom counts and no bathroom counts. That is an absent schedule, not an unreadable one.

On the 808 sq ft question: the single third-party publisher gives a built-up range of 808 – 1,378 sq ft, and there is no 808 sq ft type on any developer surface. The MAXIMA agree exactly — 1,378 sq ft is Type D1 on both — which makes the minimum disagreement harder to dismiss as a scrape error. Either a seventh type exists that the developer’s website does not display, or the publisher is wrong. There is no filed schedule to adjudicate it with, so this page publishes neither “from 808 sq ft” nor “six layouts” as exhaustive.

One thing the register does add, and nobody else publishes it: bilik reads 3, 4 on the Blok C row and a flat 3 on the Blok A and Blok B rows — so the FOUR-BEDROOM units are in Blok C only. And the register’s keluasan field is NOT used as an area anywhere on this page: it reads 0 – 87, 0 – 96 and a bare 0, and the bare zero sits on the block with the largest units, which refutes any reading of it as a built-up.

It is real and it is FINAL. The GreenRE register records The Maple Residences, WCity OUG against WCT OUG Development Sdn Bhd at BRONZE, with FINAL CERTIFICATION, dated 26 September 2025, under the residential tool RES v3.2. The licensee is named in the register row character for character, so there is no identification doubt at all, and the chronology is coherent: CCC on 30 May 2025, final certification four months later, which is the normal order for an as-built rating.

The developer understates it. WCT’s own corporate property page still lists this project as “Provisional GreenRE Bronze”, and its own simplified e-brochure says only that “a GreenRe award was given”, naming no level and no year. Three versions of one fact on three surfaces — and this page publishes the issuing body’s, because the register is the issuing body, it is the later record, and the Bronze listing’s own date window fully spans 26 September 2025.

The usual error on this site runs the other way, so the honesty is worth crediting: a developer underselling its own certificate is rare. But the same corporate table also describes another of its projects’ genuinely PROVISIONAL rating as a plain rating — one table, two projects, two errors in opposite directions — so neither reading is borrowed across and no other development’s certification appears on this page.

The rest, precisely: Platinum is a genuine clean negative read untruncated; Gold and Silver are clean negatives for a certificate of this date. The national GBI directory has been unreachable throughout this series, so GBI is INCONCLUSIVE rather than negative. No BCA Green Mark or LEED claim is made by anybody. No award and no QLASSIC score is claimed for this project by any surface read.

Nobody publishes it. That is the single biggest blank on this page and it is stated rather than filled.

No source anywhere publishes this project’s own site address, street frontage, lot or PT number, mukim or section. The filed advertisement prints only the DEVELOPER’S address; the register prints only a coordinate pair; and the only lot number WCT publishes — Lot PT 15210, Jalan Awan Besar, Taman Overseas Union, 58200 Kuala Lumpur — is the address of its SALES GALLERY. A gallery lot is not the project’s lot, and it is not published here as one.

What IS settled, on five agreeing legs, is the district and the authority: the filed advertisement names DBKL as the plan-approving authority; the plan serial BP S3 OSC 2022 2492 (19) is a DBKL form, and DBKL has jurisdiction only inside the Federal Territory; the register reads daerah: Kuala Lumpur and negeri: WP Kuala Lumpur; the developer’s own contact page postcodes its gallery 58200, the Taman Overseas Union postcode; and the Federal Territories’ own affordable-housing register groups this south-west belt under the label Seputeh.

Worth knowing: OUG is a MARKETING locality, not a gazetted one. The government uses neither Taman OUG nor Taman Overseas Union — the register files only daerah: Kuala Lumpur, and there is no OUG label in the Federal Territories’ own locality list at all.

Closed by a title search, or by the sale and purchase agreement’s Schedule H property particulars. Ask Louis to order one.

Yes, and this is one of the few things on this project that can be stated as fact rather than hedged.

pjb.jenis on register code 14379-2 reads Jadual H. The register files ONE building type for the whole registration, Rumah Pangsa/Kondo, and THREE component rows — 303 + 295 + 342 — all three of that one type, summing to exactly 940. No office suite, SOHO, studio-office, retail lot or serviced-apartment parcel is named by the filing, by the register, by the developer or by the one publisher, and 14379-4 returns a client error against bilanganProjek: 3, so there is no fourth registration for a non-HDA parcel to hide in.

So every one of the 940 units carries Schedule H under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966: the statutory liquidated-damages clause for late delivery, the section 7A housing development account, a 24-month statutory defect-liability period running from vacant possession, and access to the Housing Tribunal.

Note that the defect-liability clock runs from vacant possession, and the register’s own vacant-possession date is 30 May 2025. Whether the window is still open on a specific unit depends on when that unit was actually handed over, which the register does not record per unit. Ask for the developer’s written position on your own parcel.

Because the developer’s host publishes no image dimensions by any route, and an image that cannot be MEASURED cannot be accepted.

Twenty-eight candidate assets were inventoried — nineteen scoped to this project and nine to the township — and not one could be measured. There is no media index, no width in the file path, no browsable directory listing, and a fetch returns a status code rather than a measurable body. “Probably big enough” is not a measurement.

The cost was real: SIX well-captioned floor plans were lost to this rule, each carrying its type code, built-up, bedroom and bathroom count printed directly above it AND the same type code in its own filename — two independently agreeing legs per file. They were declined anyway.

What was not done is the point: nothing was substituted. No stock photograph. No render whose subject nobody states — the developer’s gallery holds eleven numbered files under a single heading, with no caption and no alternative text on any of them, so their subjects are simply unknown. No township masterplan either, because a township render shows land that is largely not this project and partly not built.

The right asset for this building is a PHOTOGRAPH, because it is finished — renders are the wrong asset class for a completed condominium. Ask Louis for site photographs, the six type plans and the site plan from his own project folder.

Something else, and the honest description is “a completed condominium with developer primary stock remaining”.

It is not a new launch: vacant possession has happened, the CCC issued 30 May 2025, peratusSiap reads 100 and the advertising permit lapsed in September 2025. A new-launch description turns on vacant possession being in the FUTURE, and here it is in the past.

It is not a subsale either, for the stock this page is about: the remaining units are the DEVELOPER’S, sold on a Jadual H sale and purchase agreement under the Housing Development Act, with the section 7A housing development account and the statutory defect-liability period. That is primary stock, not a sub-purchaser’s resale.

A resale and letting market does of course exist for the 652 units already sold, and that is a different transaction with different protections. Which of the two you are being offered changes what you are buying, so ask.

This page states the filed built form in words — Rumah Pangsa/Kondo on the register and Kondominium (FASA R4) on the advertisement — rather than relying on a category label, because the labels available are a blunter instrument than the filings are.