The Loop Residences @ Puchong, Bandar Metro Puchong, 47100 Puchong — 980 units on ONE Jadual H registration (30557-1): 842 open-market SOHO and Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan Perniagaan units PLUS 138 state-controlled Mampu Milik units — the register says Belum Mula, 0.00% built and NO first SPA, so the contractual VP date CANNOT BE COMPUTED while three surfaces print Januari 2028 — Daerah Petaling under Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya

Nine things about The Loop Residences that nobody else prints

This is a primary-market strata scheme that has not broken ground, sold under one Jadual H registration, with two price regimes inside it and a permit that expires within weeks of this page being written. The brochure tells you about a podium deck. The register tells you that nothing has started, that nothing has been sold, and that the delivery clock has no date to start from. Every card below is a document finding, and every one of them is checkable with the codes printed on this page.

The four filed unit classes, the two published built-ups, and what they do not tell you

Two built-ups — 450 sq ft and 750 sq ft — are published for FOUR filed price classes spanning 980 units. The filing labels the classes clearly and never ties a class to a type code, so the consequence below is arithmetic, not inference, and no source states it. Every figure here is from the KPKT-filed advertisement particulars, the register record 30557-1, or the developer’s own brochure, and where those disagree both readings are printed.

This page carries NO floor-plan image, no render, no photograph and no gallery, and the reason is specific rather than general: the developer’s media host answers a server-side fetch with a block page under the image’s own address, returning a web page where an image should be, so nothing could be imported; and the project’s own microsites are closed to automated readers. Two unlabelled floor plans do exist on the developer’s own site, and no source assigns either of them to a type — so even if they could be imported, this page could not caption one Type A or Type B without inventing the label. A third file served inside that same floor-plan section belongs to a DIFFERENT project by a DIFFERENT licensee, which is exactly why placement alone cannot assign a type here. Nothing has been substituted, and no caption on this page describes a subject that could not be sourced. Ask Louis for the artist’s impressions, the site plan and the floor plans by type directly.

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.

Bandar Metro Puchong, 47100 Puchong — Daerah PETALING, under Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya

The district is derived, and the evidence is the filed building-plan prefix: MBSJ.BGN.BP4.600-1/10/5/4(20), on three independent surfaces, character for character identical. MBSJ is Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya, whose area lies in Daerah Petaling. This matters because “Puchong” spans TWO districts and TWO councils: other Puchong-postcode pages on this site sit in Daerah Sepang under a different council, proved by a different prefix. Neither answer was carried across; this one was derived from this project’s own prefix. Every distance below is attributed to the document that prints it, and where the developer’s own two documents disagree, both figures are printed. No distance on this page is estimated, and none is borrowed from a neighbouring parcel.

The KPKT register and the filed advertisement particulars — registration 30557-1, licence 30557/09-2028/0234(N)

This is the spine of the page, not a footnote. Every figure in the table is a field from the public KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record 30557-1 or from the developer’s own KPKT-filed advertisement particulars, and every one of them can be checked against those sources with the codes printed here. Where the register and a developer surface disagree, both are printed below the table and neither is adjudicated.

Read every figure above against 30557 and 30557-1. A register search for this licensee’s brand returns thirteen licensees and TWO named “Glomac Al Batha”: ours, code 30557, and GLOMAC AL BATHA MUTIARA SDN. BHD., code 11914, whose licence expired nine years ago and whose registered project is a completed 2016 serviced apartment of 299 units at four to seven times these prices. A client searching the register by name will meet both.

Registers read 15 October 2026. Figures are reproduced as the register and the filed particulars print them, including the (N) licence suffix, which is printed here exactly as the register prints it and has not been “corrected”.

One registration, two price regimes — and the HDA protections attach to both

The single most important thing to get right about this project is that it is neither an affordable-housing scheme nor a plain open-market one. Registration 30557-1 covers 980 units: 672 SOHO and 170 Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan Perniagaan at filed open-market bands — 842 units, 85.92% — plus 119 SOHO Mampu Milik at a controlled RM230,000 and 19 Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan Perniagaan Mampu Milik at a filed RM270,000 — 138 units, 14.08%. The arithmetic closes to 980 on five independent surfaces. So describing this page’s subject as “affordable housing” would be wrong about 842 units, and leaving the controlled tier out would be wrong about 138 and would omit the most useful thing on the page. And the protections are not split the way the marketing is: one registration, one licence, one Jadual H, one -(S) strata permit, one building-plan reference. All 980 units therefore get Schedule H, the statutory liquidated-damages regime, a Housing Development Account under the Housing Development Act, the statutory defect liability period and the Housing Tribunal route. That combination is a genuine credit and worth saying plainly, because a SOHO-shaped product that IS licensed and permitted is the exception rather than the rule: this site carries pages for office- and SOHO-shaped products that had no licence, no permit and no filed advertisement at all, and therefore none of those protections. The developer markets this one registration as two separate projects, an open-market page and a Mampu Milik page. This page does not copy that split, because the test is whether the second component has its own registration — and it does not.

The caveat that sits beside that credit: PERNIAGAAN is a business class, and nobody says what follows from it

The filed unit class is literally Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan PERNIAGAAN — a BUSINESS service apartment — and SOHO. The filing names the class and then says nothing about what follows from it. NOT PUBLISHED by any source: whether the land title is commercial or residential; the utility tariff basis; the assessment-rate basis; the maintenance and sinking-fund basis; and whether a residential loan or a residential stamp-duty exemption is available on these units. The honest sentence is this: the Housing Development Act protections here are filed and real, and the commercial-title, tariff, assessment and loan consequences of a PERNIAGAAN class are unanswered by every source. Ask for the issue document of title and the tariff basis in writing before you sign. This page does not assert a commercial title, because the filing does not say it — and it does not assert a residential one either. What would close it: the issue document of title, plus written tariff confirmation from the utilities and the council’s assessment notice.

The delivery position, stated precisely — and it is the sharpest fact on the page

The register reads status.keseluruhan: Belum Mula, peratusSiap: 0.00 on all eight rows, no CCC and no handover on any row, and tarikhPjbPertama: - — no first sale and purchase agreement has been signed. It also records an APPROVED amendment of the delivery period: pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 12 Bulan, tempohPembinaanBaharu: 48 Bulan, against an original tempohAsal: 36 Bulan. Now the consequence, which no source states: Jadual H counts the delivery period from the date of the buyer’s own agreement, so those 48 months run from a date that has not happened. The contractual vacant possession date therefore CANNOT BE COMPUTED AT ALL. There is no anchor date, and this page will not invent one. Three filed and published surfaces — the filed advertisement particulars, the developer brochure and the microsite statutory block — nonetheless print Januari 2028, about fifteen and a half months after this page was written, while the approved construction period is 48 months and the register says nothing has started. The two positions cannot both be true. Both are printed. Neither is adjudicated. Read the extension precisely, because the precise reading is the fair one: the regulator granted it. It is an approved amendment and not a default, and “delayed” would be the wrong word. What is unusual is how early it came: twelve of these approvals are now recorded on this site and this is the earliest of them, granted while tarikhPjbPertama still reads a dash, i.e. before a single unit had been sold. And Lewat, the register’s own late flag, was looked for and is not raised — but at Belum Mula it could not be, so that is not a credit. In one sentence, for a buyer: you would be signing into a 48-month delivery clock that starts on the day you sign, on a project the federal register records as not started — so “January 2028” is a planning date, not a promise, and the only date that will bind anyone is the one written into their own agreement.

The advertising and sales permit expires on 06 December 2026 — and this page carries a re-check date

The permit 30557-1/12-2026/1300(N)-(S) runs 07 December 2023 to 06 December 2026. It is CURRENT as at 15 October 2026, the day this page was written, and it lapses about seven weeks later. A page published today and left unattended would be stating a lapsed instrument by mid-December, so the re-check date is printed on this page in both languages: 6 December 2026. Never read the licence’s date as the permit’s. The licence runs to 07 September 2028; the permit expires 06 December 2026. They are different instruments, and here the gap matters twice over, because the renewed permit filing is also the document that would finally show which price generation the developer is selling on. A note on where the real permit number came from, because the usual polarity is reversed here: the KPKT-filed advertisement prints the literal placeholder xxxxxxx in the permit field, and the filed newspaper capture prints Submitting and Pending — while the register, the developer’s own brochure and its microsite all print the real permit in full, matching each other character for character. So the developer’s marketing is MORE current than its own statutory filing on this project. No twin-suffixed permit, no superseded permit generation and no sequence anomaly exists on this record; those shapes were checked for and are absent. And the -(S) tail is the strata marker, which is load-bearing for the foreign-buyer answer below.

The controlled-price regime: the three facts that appear on no Loop document

RM230,000 is a controlled statutory price set by the State authority for the SOHO MAMPU MILIK category, published in the Selangor housing authority’s own controlled-price list dated 10 September 2026 under this project’s registered name and this licensee’s name, filed Petaling / PETALING. It is corroborated to the ringgit by the register, the filed advertisement, the developer brochure, the microsite statutory block and the developer’s own Mampu Milik page — five surfaces plus the state list, which is the cleanest controlled-price corroboration on this site. It is a price set by an authority. It is publishable, and this page publishes it labelled as exactly that: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer, and a client must confirm current availability and the current list. Then the three regime facts, all from that list’s own preamble, and NOT ONE of them is printed on any Loop document — not the filed advertisement, not the brochure, not the microsite statutory block, not either developer project page. One, the eligibility test: Malaysian citizen, applicant and spouse; 18 or over; single or married; household income not exceeding RM15,000 a month, with priority to applicants earning up to RM10,000; neither spouse may already hold a qualifying affordable commercial home or boutique office, though existing Rumah Selangorku owners are exempt from that bar; and online registration with the authority is compulsory, after which the applicant deals with the developer subject to availability. Two, an application is valid for two years and must be made again if no allocation arrives. Three, and this is the one a buyer is least likely to be told: a FIVE-YEAR transfer moratorium running from the date of the sale and purchase agreement, releasable only with State Authority approval. For a buyer looking at that tier, those three matter more than anything else on this page. They are the reason the page exists. And the 19-unit RM270,000 tier is filed on five surfaces and in the register but is ABSENT from that state list, so it is published here as a FILED price and not as a confirmed controlled one — and nothing published anywhere states whether the same test and the same moratorium attach to it.

Foreign buyers: the floor is RM2,000,000, nothing comes close, and two further bars sit on top

The district is Daerah Petaling, derived from the filed building-plan prefix MBSJ.BGN.BP4.600-1/10/5/4(20) on three identical surfaces and corroborated by the register and by the state controlled-price list. Daerah Petaling sits in Selangor Zone 1, where the published minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer is RM2,000,000 — strata, and gated landed strata, only. A “47100 Puchong” address invites the Kuala Lumpur figure of RM1,000,000, which is half the right number here, and that is why this page states the floor even though it turns out to be academic. Against that floor: the controlled RM230,000 reaches 11.5% of it, the filed RM270,000 13.5%, the SOHO band 18.3% to 18.6% and the Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan Perniagaan band 30.5% to 30.6%. So ZERO of 980 units clear it, the dearest unit in the project falls short by more than RM1.38 million, and nothing straddles — which makes this the cleanest such result on this site, with nothing left undeterminable. Two further bars sit on top of the price, and they are independent of it. First, the 138 Mampu Milik units require Malaysian citizenship expressly, under the state eligibility conditions above. Second, the filed restriction in interest is present, readable and explicit on three surfaces: the land may not be transferred, leased or charged without the consent of the approving authority. And the title FORM does not bar: this is Jadual H plus a -(S) strata tail, and published Selangor guidance restricts individual-title landed property to Malaysians while permitting strata above the floor. So the form does not bar here — the price does, by a factor of more than three. Tenure is a 99-year lease expiring 25 March 2117, not freehold, and no surface claims otherwise. Confirm the current position with PTG Selangor in writing: the state land office publishes no reachable circular, so this page cites the published consensus and tells you to confirm it rather than presenting it as the authority’s own text.

Density is not on this page, and the arithmetic is what refuses it

NO SOURCE PUBLISHES THIS PROJECT’S OWN PARCEL AREA. There is no Keluasan Tanah row in the filed advertisement, none in the brochure, none in the microsite statutory block, none on either project page, none in either press release, and the register prints no land-area field. Density therefore cannot be computed, and this page says so instead of estimating it. The obvious shortcut is refused with arithmetic rather than with an opinion. The township announced for this address is 15.3 acres with a development value of RM1.6 billion, and 980 divided by 15.3 would give about 64 units an acre. But the sum of these 980 units’ own registered statutory minima is about RM381.8 million and the sum of their maxima about RM386.2 million — that is 23.9% to 24.1% of RM1.6 billion. And the developer’s own Malay-language release names three serviced-apartment plots inside the township’s continuation, with this project as the first phase. So 15.3 acres carries roughly FOUR TIMES this product, and using it as a denominator would be the township-denominator trap. The arithmetic proves the refusal rather than merely asserting it. Three further denominators are refused too: the township’s 188 acres and its 200 acres — the developer’s own surfaces disagree with each other by 12 acres on the same township — and a neighbouring parcel’s 23.9 acres, which belongs to a different licensee’s product. And a phrase is refused with it: the township microsite describes the development as “low-density”. On 980 units in two towers of between 19 and 34 levels on an unpublished parcel, that is unsupportable and unfalsifiable — and on the only denominator anybody has published it would give about 64 units an acre, which is not low density by any reading. This page does not print the phrase. What would close it: a title search or land-office extract for the lot, or the Keluasan Tanah row of a renewed permit filing.

The green claim: unverifiable, and never published here as certified

Both of the developer’s project pages carry a Green Building Index claim in their PAGE METADATA ONLY. There is no certificate number, no rating tier, no version, no date and no scope, and no mention of it in either page body, in the brochure, in the filed advertisement, in the microsite statutory block or in either press release. The GBI register could not be reached on the day of writing, which is inconclusive and never a negative. The GreenRE tables were read: the Platinum table closes cleanly with no row for this project, this licensee or this town; the other three tiers truncate at their oldest end, and the Bronze table currently reaches back only to April 2024 while this project’s permit dates to December 2023 — so a pre-2024 provisional rating would be invisible there. That zero is INCONCLUSIVE, not a negative. The developer’s own accolades page claims no building certification for any of its projects, and its 2024 company-level sustainability recognition is not a building certification and does not belong beside this claim. Verdict: the claim cannot be verified, and the word “certified” is not published here, in either language, of GBI or of GreenRE. The honest sentence: the developer describes the development as GBI certified in its page metadata; no certificate number is published; the GBI register could not be reached; no GreenRE entry was found and that search cannot close. Ask the developer for the certificate itself, with its number, tier, version, date and scope. A genuine GreenRE provisional rating does exist for a different Glomac project under a different licensee in a different town. “Glomac has a GreenRE rating” is true at group level and false for this project, and it is provisional rather than certified in any case. It is not borrowed here.

Awards: none for this project, and the borrowing minefield is named

The developer’s corporate accolades page is a dated, attributed list of roughly 47 awards from 1995 to 2024 — a genuine credit to the group, and the largest borrowing risk on this job. NOT ONE of those awards names this project or this township’s new phase. Zero. The one award that names this township at all is a 2018 lifestyle-development award belonging to a DIFFERENT licensee’s completed terrace-era product, five years before this project’s first licence was issued — so it must not appear on, or be implied by, this page, and it does not. The majority of the list is corporate or personal rather than project-level, and the project-level entries belong to other, named schemes. The press release’s own phrase “award-winning property developer” is a COMPANY claim and is attributed as one here rather than being read down to this project. Every award on this site is dated against the registration before it is allowed near a page; this one has no project-level award to date.

The thirteen contradictions, printed and unresolved

One. The filed newspaper advertisement is a WEB-PAGE CAPTURE carrying TWO complete statutory panels with two open-market price generations about 25% apart: panel 1 at SOHO RM457,000–465,000 and PPP RM761,000–766,000, panel 2 at the register’s RM365,610–371,829 and RM609,268–612,317, with identical controlled-tier rows in both and 980 units in both. Panel 1’s maxima exceed the register’s, so the remaining-stock explanation was tested and does not fit; there is no Baki Unit field on this record and nothing has been sold. Both panels print the permit as not yet issued, so neither can be dated against the other. Two. Both press releases print a third price shape — a single range topping at RM660,000 for all 980 units with no class breakdown — which matches no panel on any surface; and a developer project page carries a fourth shape, which is withheld for the reason set out in the disclosure below. Three. Type B bedrooms: the filing says 2 bilik tidur, the developer’s own brochure says 3 bedrooms; Type A reads 1 against 1+1. The register’s own bilik and tandas fields read 0/0 and cannot break it. A material buyer fact, left open. Four. Storeys: the register reads 24 on the Menara 1A rows and 26 on the 1B rows, while the filed advertisement and the brochure give level ranges 13–34 and 15–33, implying 22 and 19. Neither register figure matches either count. Five. Built-up range: 450–750 sq ft on the open-market page and in the filing against 450–550 sq ft on the Mampu Milik page, introducing a 550 sq ft figure that appears in no type row anywhere. Six. Township acreage: 188 acres in both press releases against 200 acres on the developer’s corporate township page and on the township microsite — a 12-acre, 6.4% disagreement among the developer’s own surfaces. And the corporate township page does not mention this project or its township phase at all. Seven. The developer’s own two distance tables disagree with each other on their own shared destinations: one mall at 3.3 km against 5 km, and the same expressway at 4.4 km against 3 km. A third table on this site, for a parcel about a kilometre away and by the same group, gives a third figure for that mall. Nothing crosses between parcels here. Eight. The state controlled-price list carries only the RM230,000 tier; the RM270,000 Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan Perniagaan Mampu Milik tier is filed on five surfaces and in the register and is absent from that list, even though the list’s preamble says it covers Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan affordable stock. Published here as a FILED price, not a confirmed controlled one. Nine. The licensee’s name is spelled Glomac Albatha in one filed document’s header and Glomac Al Batha in the same document’s disclaimer, and its address is printed as Level 1, Menara Glomac in that header against Level 15 in the disclaimer and in the register. One document, two spellings and two floors. Ten. Licence validity: three surfaces print 07.09.2023 – 07.09.2028 while one prints “valid for 5 years” with no dates. The dated form is published here. Eleven. Neither developer project page carries a single statutory field — no licence, no permit, no plan reference, no tenure, no chargee, no unit count, no completion date — while a brochure PDF two clicks away carries the complete block. A disclosure gap on the surfaces a buyer actually lands on. Twelve. The Mampu Milik page’s URL slug and its own heading disagree, and that page publishes the PARENT company’s registration number where a reader will take it for the project developer’s. The licensee’s number is 743875-X; the parent is a different company. Thirteen. The press releases’ own arithmetic does not close: five named components sum to about RM2.22 billion against an announced RM2.6 billion continuation, and to 52.2 acres against an announced 188-acre township, with no explanation of the gap. The English and Malay releases do agree with each other exactly, which is worth crediting.

Not published by anybody, therefore not on this page

This list is what Louis will go and ask the developer for, in writing. Each item names the document that would close it. Which floors, which stacks and which orientation the 138 controlled-price units occupy — the single most important unanswered question here; the approved building plan MBSJ.BGN.BP4.600-1/10/5/4(20) from the council, or the developer’s unit-numbering schedule, would close it. The car-park bay count and the allocation per type — the council-approved car-park layout under the same plan reference, or the agreement’s Fourth Schedule. The parcel area, and therefore any density figure — a title search or land-office extract, or the Keluasan Tanah row of a renewed permit filing. The lot or PT number — the same title search, or the agreement’s First Schedule. Whether the title is commercial or residential, and the tariff, assessment, maintenance and loan consequences — the issue document of title, plus written utility and council confirmation. Which price generation is current — a renewed permit filing made after 06 December 2026, which will print the then-current band. The real vacant possession date — only the buyer’s own agreement can answer it, because Jadual H counts 48 months from that document’s own date. Type B’s bedroom count and what Type B2 is — the stamped agreement floor plan, or the approved floor-plan set. The storey count — the approved building plan, or a renewed permit filing printing Bilangan Tingkat. The maintenance charge and the sinking-fund rate — the Schedule H disclosure or the developer’s maintenance budget. The GBI certificate number, tier, version, date and scope — the certificate itself. Any contractor, architect, engineer or quantity surveyor — none is named on any surface; a listed-company contract-award announcement, or the submitting-architect block on the approved plan, would close it. That route was closed on the day of writing by an investor-relations host that refuses automated readers and by an exhausted search budget, so record it as a closed route with a named cause rather than as “no contractor exists”. Whether the name “Al Batha” reflects a joint venture, and any shareholding split — no source read states a joint venture, names a partner or gives a percentage; the parent’s annual report or a companies-registry search would close it. The name is a lead, not a finding. Which rail station “LRT Puchong” means — the network map read against the developer’s own written confirmation; never an estimate. Whether the RM270,000 tier is state-controlled — a later edition of the state list carrying that row, or a written confirmation from the authority. The security specification behind “3-tier”, and whether the co-working space’s named internet commitment has a term — the developer, in writing. Any independent third-party record of this project at all — none exists that could be reached: one portal returns a generic shell with no record, another returns a server error, the project’s own two microsites refuse automated readers, and the search budget was exhausted before the first query. Every comparison on this page is therefore register-against-developer or developer-against-developer, with no independent referee, and the page is written in that knowledge.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction governs this section and it is absolute: nothing from his company’s project materials about a discount, a rebate, a nett price, a promotion or a commission may be made public on any page, in either language. This page therefore records that certain things EXIST and does not quantify them. The rule is not a style preference; it is why you should ring Louis for the current numbers rather than read them off a web page. One. The filed advertisement particulars, the filed newspaper capture and the microsite statutory block all carry a field headed Diskaun Bumiputera WITH A VALUE IN IT. This page states that the field exists and withholds the value, and it does not characterise the field or state the conditions attached to it — no source publishes those anyway. Quoting the statutory field name in the language it was filed in is not the same thing as publishing the figure. Two clean negatives sit beside it, and they are worth stating because they are what distinguishes this shape from the other one: there is NO ethnic-allocation quota row on any surface, and NO lot-title classification row either. A field of one kind exists; a row of the other kind does not. Two. The developer’s township microsite carries an untermed early-bird item with no terms published anywhere. This page records only that it exists and that the township microsite is what carries it. It does not characterise it, does not quote terms, and did not go looking for them. Three. The parent company published an announcement on 27 January 2026 of a women-centric homeownership initiative with AFFIN Bank for this project, in its own news list. This page records the EXISTENCE of that arrangement, its date and who publishes it, and NOTHING ELSE: no term, no rate, no instalment, no fee treatment, no eligibility condition and no figure derived from any of them. The announcement document was deliberately not opened. Ask Louis for the current terms. And do not confuse the two banks: the CHARGEE on the filed title is MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD, on three surfaces, and that is the one that belongs in the statutory block. The other is a marketing partner on a 2026 campaign. Different banks, different roles. Four. The developer’s open-market project page publishes a single “from” figure, and that figure is withheld here. The reasoning is recorded so it can be argued with: it is ABOVE this project’s lowest filed price, so it is not strictly sub-minimum; but it is BELOW the filed open-market SOHO minimum of RM365,610, far below the second filed panel’s RM457,000, and it matches NO row on ANY of six surfaces. A figure that reconciles to nothing, sitting on a page that carries no statutory block at all, is indistinguishable from the class of figure the rule above forbids. Recorded as the rule requires: the discrepancy exists, and ONE surface carries it — the developer’s own project page. No portal carries it, because no portal record of this project exists at all. Five, and it is worth saying because it is unusual on a SOHO product: NOTHING in the yield, ROI, rental-return, leaseback or guaranteed-rental family appears on ANY surface for this project — not on either project page, not on the township microsite, not in the brochure, not in either press release. There is no return claim, no rental programme and no projection to withhold here, and on this product type that absence is a credit rather than a gap. What this page DOES publish, and why it is allowed: the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum from the KPKT register and the filed advertisement particulars — SOHO RM365,610 to RM371,829 and Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan Perniagaan RM609,268 to RM612,317 — which is the filed SPA price range (合同价); the controlled RM230,000 set by the State authority; and the filed RM270,000, labelled as filed rather than controlled. Each of those is a public-record figure and each is labelled with its source. NOT A PRICE LIST, NOT A QUOTATION, NOT AN OFFER. And nothing else: no “from” figure, no per-square-foot figure, no figure for any particular unit, and nothing from the other three price shapes beyond printing that they exist. The only place a real, current, unit-specific number comes from is the developer’s price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. Ask Louis to get it for you in writing.

The Loop Residences @ Puchong — frequently asked questions

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

Published 15 October 2026 · last verified 15 October 2026 · registers read 15 October 2026 · NEXT RE-CHECK 6 DECEMBER 2026, when the advertising and sales permit expires. Sources: the public KPKT TEDUH register developer record for code 30557 and the project record 30557-1; the developer’s KPKT-filed advertisement particulars and filed newspaper capture; the developer’s own brochure, microsite statutory block, two project pages and township microsite; the Selangor housing authority’s published controlled-price list dated 10 September 2026; the GreenRE public tables; and the published consensus on Selangor’s foreign-buyer thresholds, including Louis’s own company’s guide. Marketing information compiled from public records, not an offer. Confirm every figure against the current filed documents and the agreement before you commit. This page carries no imagery at all, deliberately, and says why in both languages.