38 Bangsar Residensi @ Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur — the registered name, marketed as Residensi 38 Bangsar: 278 serviced apartments over 38 storeys, Jadual H, COMPLETE since September 2025 — and the developer’s own filed advertisement gives this lease TWO terms and THREE expiry dates

Four facts frame this page, and the first one comes entirely from the primary document

Nothing in this section is a selling point. Each of the four is a documentary finding, and three of them are findings against the developer’s own paperwork.

Nine marketed layouts — and not one of these areas is a filed figure

Read the warning before the table. The filed advertisement carries no built-up schedule at all, so every area below comes from the developer’s own website and is a marketing figure, not a statutory one. The bathroom and car-park counts come from the same source. The register contributes only the ranges bilik: 1, 2, 3 and tandas: 1, 2, 3, and its own area field is corrupt — it reads 0 - 54 with broken encoding, so it cannot be checked against anything. No source publishes any figure in square metres, so none appears here.

Not one area, bedroom count or bathroom count on this page is a statutory figure, because the filed advertisement publishes no area schedule. The documents that would settle a specific unit are the First Schedule of the Schedule H sale and purchase agreement and the developer’s own floor-plan sheet for that type. Ask for both in writing before you pay a deposit.

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.

Bangsar proper, on Jalan Bangsar Utama 1 — and NOT Bangsar South

The locality question matters on this project more than on most, because the contamination is in the developer’s own filenames. Four legs put this building in Bangsar proper: the filed sales-gallery address and the developer’s own driving directions both read Jalan Bangsar Utama 1; the developer publishes 150 m to Bangsar LRT, 200 m to Menara Maybank Bangsar and 240 m to Menara UOA Bangsar; its own distance table puts Mid Valley Megamall at 3.1 km and Bangsar Shopping Centre at 2.6 km, i.e. the project sits between them; and the one portal that holds the project files it under its Bangsar index rather than its southern one. The southern township is a separate place about 2.5 km away with its own postcode, and this page does not place the project there in either language.

KPKT TEDUH register 14069-2 and the filed advertisement, side by side

This is the spine of the page, not a footnote. Everything in the row below is either the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for 14069-2 or the developer’s own filed advertisement — and where those two disagree, both values are in the cell. The filed advertisement is reachable from the register’s own iklan array; it is one document containing nine successive statutory blocks, and the readings below are from the latest of them unless a cell says otherwise.

Register and filed advertisement both read 15 October 2026. The advertising and sales permit had already expired on 29 March 2026 and the register showed no successor on that reading — so every permit sentence on this page is a dated statement and should be re-checked on the day you act on it. The developer licence runs to 29 March 2028 and is a different instrument.

Verify all of this yourself at teduh.kpkt.gov.my by searching the registered name 38 Bangsar Residensi or the register code 14069-2. Searching “Bangsar 38” finds nothing — and neither does searching for the numeral on its own: no licensed developer in Malaysia has “38” in its company name, so the project’s own numeral reaches no corporate record at all.

The filed advertisement is a stack of NINE statutory blocks — and that is a finding in itself

One HIMS document exists for this project, reachable from the register’s own iklan array. Inside it are NINE successive statutory particulars blocks, seven of them materially distinct. No version number is printed anywhere: the only markers are Brosur: Halaman 1 / Brosur: Halaman 2 and the licence validity lines, so the only ordering available is the document’s own sequence. Across that sequence the tenure changes term AND expiry, the price minimum changes, the remaining-stock figure changes — and RISES at one point — the expected completion date changes twice, and the advertising permit’s own product tail flips from the landed code to the strata code. Every one of those readings is in the table in the frequently-asked questions below, block by block, so you can see the drift rather than take our word for it. What it means in practice: “the filed advertisement says” is not a single answer on this project, and any page that quotes one figure from it without saying which block is quoting selectively. This page quotes the latest block by default and names the block whenever an earlier one disagrees.

Which source answered which question — and the questions neither of them answered

The filing and the register do not overlap the way a reader expects, and on this project the division is unusually clean. ONLY the filing has: the licensee’s registration number 1110369-U; the approving authority, in words; the building-plan reference; the restriction in interest; the Bebanan: Tiada statement; the car-park allocation by type; and the filed statutory price range. ONLY the register has: the storey count; the real advertising and sales permit number and its validity; the CCC and vacant-possession dates; the delivery-extension field; the completion percentage; and the licensee’s offence flag. And the permit case is the sharpest illustration on the whole project: the filing prints the permit as a literal XXXXX placeholder in ALL NINE blocks, so the lapse is unassessable from the primary document and completely assessable from the register. The register is the source that answered it, and this page says so rather than letting the two blur. NEITHER source has: the lot number; the land area; a built-up schedule; the project’s own street number or postcode; the lease commencement date; or the tenure, settled.

The developer: five identities on four surfaces, printed rather than resolved

The statutory block of the filed advertisement names ONE JSI Development Sdn Bhd (1110369-U). That is the licensed developer and it is the party a buyer contracts with. The sales copy of that same document says the project is “Dimajukan Oleh UDA Property Malaysia”, and its footer separately names UDA Land Sdn Bhd (161742-H). The developer’s own web page names no developer at all — it names UDA Land (Central) Sdn Bhd as the operator of the SALES GALLERY and nothing more. And a property portal says the developer is “UDA Land”. So one filed document names two different group entities in its marketing copy and a third, differently named company in its statutory block, and two further names appear on the consumer surfaces. Five identities, four surfaces. This page prints them and resolves none of them, because resolving them is not ours to do. What the evidence does establish is the family rather than the attribution: the licensee’s registered office, its business address and its e-mail domain all match the UDA Holdings group’s own register entries, so the honest formulation is “a UDA Holdings group company” — not “UDA Land”, which is a different licensee with its own projects, none of them this one. A client told “the developer is UDA Land” and searching the register for that name finds dozens of projects and NOT THIS ONE. Two things are genuinely open: whether UDA Land (Central) Sdn Bhd holds a developer licence at all — the register listing that would prove it truncated, so its absence is not a clean negative — and what “JSI” stands for, which NO source read publishes. The company profile of One JSI Development Sdn Bhd, or the group’s annual-report subsidiaries note, closes both.

The register’s own flag on the licensee — stated, not characterised

The KPKT register carries a field on this licensee reading mempunyaiKesalahan: Ada Kesalahan. The flag is set. The register publishes NO particulars behind it: no date, no description, no outcome, no project. So this page records two things and nothing else: that the register’s own field is set, and that the register says nothing about what it is for. It does not characterise the flag, infer a cause, connect it to this project or connect it to anything else. A KPKT enforcement record is the document that would explain it. And one specific confusion is refused outright: a portal reports three OTHER projects in the same corporate family as being behind schedule on a ministry watch list. Those are different projects under different licensees. They have nothing to do with this registration and they are not merged with this flag here.

Foreign buyers: the floor, the consent that sits on top of it, and the arithmetic this page refuses

This project is in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, so the threshold is RM1,000,000 — Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah of 13 July 2022, with Economic Planning Unit consent, and National Land Code section 433B. No Selangor zone applies to this page, and the RM1,500,000 window some older material still quotes has expired and is not current. The filed statutory range STRADDLES the floor: its minimum is roughly 76% of RM1,000,000 and its maximum is roughly 1.9 times it. So part of this tower’s stock clears the threshold and part of it does not, and a flat “foreigners can buy here” would be false. What this page CANNOT do, and will not estimate: say what share of the stock sits above the floor. No source publishes a price by type, so the share is unknown, and inventing one would also publish a price by inference. The page states that it cannot be stated. And the obstacle that is NOT the price: the filed Sekatan Kepentingan means the land cannot be transferred, leased or charged without the approval of the Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur land working committee. That consent applies to Malaysian buyers too and sits on TOP of any foreign-acquisition consent — two gates, not one. The product itself is not an obstacle: strata Pangsapuri Servis on Schedule H with a -(S) permit tail is the acquirable shape. The real practical issue is the lease. If the latest filed block is right and the term expires in 2085, a buyer of either nationality is buying about fifty-nine years of remaining term — and nothing independent of the filing settles that. Confirm both consents and the title in writing, for the specific unit, before any deposit.

What 100.00% and Siap Dengan CCC actually mean on this record

The register reads peratusSiap: 100.00 with status: Siap Dengan CCC, and it carries both a CCC date of 8 September 2025 and a vacant possession date of 17 September 2025. This building is finished and handed over; it is not under construction and it is not a launch. What that changes for a buyer, concretely: there is no construction risk left to price, the statutory defect liability period ran from vacant possession and on these dates has already expired for anyone who took delivery at handover, and what remains unsold is DEVELOPER STOCK in a completed building rather than off-plan inventory. What it does NOT change: the lease question, the restriction in interest, and the fact that the advertising and sales permit under which that stock is offered expired on 29 March 2026 with no successor in the register. And it is why this page carries no “new launch” badge: a completion certificate and a past vacant-possession date make that label false regardless of how much stock is left. Equally, it is not a subsale page: nothing on any surface establishes that a single unit is being resold by an owner, and roughly half the tower is still the developer’s own unsold stock. Both market labels are refused and the real position is written out in words instead. No QLASSIC score is claimed by anyone on a project that has a CCC, so none is published here.

Not published by anyone — therefore not on this page, and here is the document that would close each

This list is the honest part of the page. Each item is something a buyer would reasonably expect to find and that NO source read publishes. The lease — term, expiry and commencement date: the issue document of title for the parcel, or the Schedule to the Schedule H agreement. The lot number, street number and postcode of the site: the filed site plan under BP S1 OSC 2019 2902, or the title. The land area, and therefore any density figure: the filed layout plan or the title. A statutory built-up schedule: there is none — only the First Schedule of the agreement gives a legally filed parcel area. Bedroom counts for types A1, A2 and A3: the developer’s own floor-plan sheets, or the agreement’s schedule. What “JSI” stands for, the licensee’s shareholders, and whether any joint venture exists: the licensee’s company profile, or the group’s annual report. Note the phrasing on the joint venture: no filed document, register field or developer surface names a partner or a share split, so “no joint venture is published” is the honest statement and “no joint venture exists” is not. The particulars behind the licensee’s offence flag: a KPKT enforcement record. Which facility sits on which of the two amenity levels: the facilities plan sheets. Which KTM station the claimed pedestrian link reaches: the developer’s own location map — and this page does NOT guess it. The awarding body and year of the second award claim: the awards organiser’s own results list. The total number of car-park bays in the building and their allocation by level: the filed car-park plan; the filing gives bays per type only. The sinking fund in ringgit and the first-year maintenance budget: the agreement and the management corporation’s first budget. A price by type: nobody publishes one, which is why this page cannot and does not state what share of stock clears the foreign-buyer floor. And a pixel dimension for any single image on the developer’s host: a browser — every measurement route available for this page failed.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction on his company’s own project materials is absolute, and this paragraph is the only place on the page where these words appear at all. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion, no freebie and no commission figure is published here, in either language, in the body or in this page’s structured data — and none was found on any of the five surfaces read for this project in the first place, so on this project there was nothing of that kind to withhold. Nor is any yield, ROI, rental-return, leaseback or guaranteed-rental RATE published, and here too the finding is that no source claims one: on a completed serviced apartment with about half its stock unsold, the complete absence of a rental programme or a return projection is itself worth recording. ONE statutory field does need naming rather than hiding. The filed advertisement carries a field printed Diskaun Bumiputra in all nine of its blocks, and that field carries a percentage value. The field exists; the value is withheld and appears nowhere on this page. Say what it is and what it is not: it is a Bumiputera price-adjustment field. It is NOT an ethnic-allocation quota and it is NOT a lot-title classification — those are three different things and this filing carries only the first. No quota field and no title classification appears on any surface read. What IS published here, and deliberately: the filed statutory Unit Selling Price range from the developer’s own legally filed advertisement, and the KPKT register’s own public price band, each labelled by the surface that printed it, with their disagreement shown rather than smoothed over. Neither is a price list, neither is a quotation and neither is an offer. Also published, because a buyer always asks and because a charge is not a price: a maintenance rate of RM0.50 per square foot stated as excluding a 10% sinking fund, from ONE portal only, with the developer and the filing both silent on it. And one further refusal: two mortgage calculators run on the surfaces read, and one of them prints an indicative monthly repayment with its own loan assumptions. That is a calculator output, not a developer financing arrangement, and this page publishes no instalment figure and no rate. Everything beyond the statutory bands — the real price of a real unit, and anything attaching to it — comes from the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery. Ask Louis for both in writing.

Why this page carries no imagery at all, and what the image library actually contained

This is a deliberate decision, not an omission, and the reasoning is published so you can judge it. The acceptance test for an image on this site includes a minimum pixel width. Not one dimension could be obtained for any candidate asset on the developer’s host — every available measurement route failed — so every candidate is declined as UNMEASURED rather than as small, because an asset that cannot be measured cannot pass a size test. Three refusals, though, do not depend on measurement at all and would stand at any size. One: a banner asset whose own filename contains the word (mobile) — the developer has labelled it a phone-sized slice itself. Two: an asset sitting in this project’s own specification folder that is a stock photograph, whose filename IS the stock-agency caption string — a long hyphenated English sentence describing generic people doing a generic activity. Three, and it is the worst of them: twenty-seven unit photographs placed on this project’s own page are named, in the developer’s own filenames, for a DIFFERENT LOCALITY — the southern township roughly two and a half kilometres away that this page refuses as the project’s location. Their alt text names THIS project’s type codes while their filenames name somewhere else: the two pieces of evidence disagree about the same file. They are refused on provenance, whatever they measure, and the only thing that would clear them is written confirmation from the developer of which building was photographed. Two further observations about that library are worth a buyer’s attention. The ONLY exterior material in it is also the OLDEST thing in it — December 2022, with nobody having captioned what it actually shows — on a tower that received its completion certificate in September 2025. There is no dated construction photograph and no photograph of the finished building anywhere. And six of the developer’s own thirteen published facilities have no reachable image at all, so the facility list could not have been illustrated even with a fully measured set. Nothing was substituted. No stock photograph, no phone slice, no image borrowed from a neighbouring project and no caption transferred from one file to another appears on this page. A site visit, a unit viewing, and the developer’s own high-resolution files with written confirmation of the subject are what close this.

Questions a buyer actually asks about 38 Bangsar Residensi

Other pages near this one — and nothing crosses between them

Published 15 October 2026 · last verified 15 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register record for 14069-2, the filed advertisement reachable from that record, all four GreenRE certification tiers and the developer’s own project page. Marketing information, not an offer. The advertising and sales permit position is a dated statement: it had expired on 29 March 2026 with no successor in the register on the date above.