NO KPKT licence — NEVER ISSUED to any company in this group · NO registration · NO APDL · Daerah Kuala Langat, Selangor · FREEHOLD, Lots 1141–1143

I&I Jenjarom Industrial Park — `LOTS 1141, 1142, 1143`, off Jalan Sungai Rambai, Jenjarom, `Daerah KUALA LANGAT`, Selangor — FREEHOLD on six surfaces with no dissent, INDIVIDUAL TITLE, floor loading 3 tonnes/m², a 12.2 m eave and 300–600 A per unit on 15.2 acres — and ENTIRELY OUTSIDE the Housing Development Act 1966: NO company in this group has EVER held a KPKT developer licence. The developer’s own website puts this park in TWO DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. TWO PHASES, and the later one is a THIRD of the floor loading and a TENTH of the size. NO PRICE IS PUBLISHED HERE

Q: Is I&I Jenjarom Industrial Park registered with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government?

No, and it cannot be. The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 reaches “housing accommodation”, and a three-storey factory is not housing accommodation. So there is no registered scheme, no project code, no advertising and sales permit and no filed statutory advertisement — and none of those absences is a failure by anybody. The register was searched on 21 October 2026 with a positive control run first, so the zero is a real zero.

Q: Which district is it in — Kuala Langat or Klang?

KUALA LANGAT, and the developer’s own website says both. Its division page says Kuala Langat; its projects page says Klang. One company, two pages, two districts, and that contradiction is printed here rather than tidied away. Kuala Langat rests on five legs, ranked: SIX filed ministry registrations for the adjacent licensed township all record the district as Kuala Langat, and the later-phase source puts this parcel 250 m from that township; the developer’s own division page; an agent listing giving the address as off Jalan Sungai Rambai, Telok Panglima Garang, which seven earlier filed registrations settled as Kuala Langat; an agency filing it under Banting, the district town of Kuala Langat; and the later-phase source stating the district in terms. NO PLAN PREFIX IS CLAIMED, because no plan-approval reference exists in any reachable source — and even the six neighbouring registrations print the plan field as having no information. A Majlis Perbandaran Kuala Langat plan reference, or the mukim off a title search, would close it absolutely.

Start with the law, because it decides everything else on this page. The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 reaches “housing accommodation”. A factory or a warehouse is not housing accommodation, so no developer licence, no advertising and sales permit and no registered scheme CAN be issued for this park. The absence is lawful. What it costs a buyer is the finding, not a gap: no Schedule G and no Schedule H prescribed contract; no statutory liquidated damages if delivery runs late; no section 7A housing development account ring-fencing progress payments; no filed completion date; no KPKT register entry to check; and no Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. The developer’s own sale and purchase agreement, and the solicitor you appoint to read it, is the entire protection you have. AND THE LICENCE ANSWER HERE IS “NEVER ISSUED”, NOT “LAPSED”. No company in this group has ever held a KPKT developer licence — not the holding company, not the developing entity, not the group’s other operating company. AND THE ZERO IS TRUSTWORTHY, BECAUSE THE AMPERSAND WAS CONTROLLED FOR. A two-letter brand with an ampersand in it is exactly the search that fails silently, so the register was first queried with a known ampersanded licensee as a control — and it came back INTACT, naming L & T REALTY SDN. BHD., code 30331. So the endpoint handles an ampersand correctly, and the zero on this group’s name is a real zero rather than a URL-encoding artefact. The register was searched properly, and that is why the finding stands. AND HERE IS THE COMPARISON THE PAGE EXISTS TO MAKE, 250 METRES AWAY. SCIENTEX JENJAROM SDN. BHD. holds licence 30714/03-2029/0056(A), code 30714, with SIX registered phases in this same locality — and on an agent’s own figure the subject sits about 250 m from that township. Every statutory field this page cannot fill, that neighbour has: a registration code, a permit with a validity window, a filed delivery period, a construction-progress percentage, a late flag and the Tribunal. That is lawful, and it is exactly the point. NOW THE GOOD NEWS, AND THERE IS A LOT OF IT — ALL THREE QUESTIONS THE PRODUCT CLASS MAKES UNAVOIDABLE ARE ANSWERED FROM THE DEVELOPER’S OWN SURFACE. TENURE: FREEHOLD, on SIX independent surfaces with ZERO dissent — the developer’s own division page and its Phase 1 page, four agent surfaces, and the later phase’s launch write-up. No lease, no term, no expiry, because there is none. TITLE: INDIVIDUAL TITLE, with the land-use descriptor “medium industrial” — and this one is SINGLE-SOURCED to an agent blog rather than to the developer, which is flagged here and everywhere else it appears. FLOOR LOADING: 3 tonnes/m² on the ground-floor slab, from the developer’s own Phase 1 page — and an agent REFINES it rather than contradicting it: 3 t/m² in the production area, 1.5 t/m² in the front setback, 1 t/m² at the sides and rear. Plus published LOT NUMBERS — 1141, 1142 and 1143 — on about 15.2 acres, a 12.2 m eave, 600 A for the detached type and 300 A for the semi-detached, a four-type schedule with per-floor areas, and a 24-month contractual defect liability period. AND NOW THE THREE THINGS THAT WILL MISLEAD YOU IF NOBODY POINTS THEM OUT. ONE: THE DEVELOPER’S OWN WEBSITE PUTS THIS PARK IN TWO DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. Its division page says “Jenjarom town, KUALA LANGAT”; its projects page says “Jenjarom, KLANG”. KUALA LANGAT IS CORRECT — six filed Scientex Jenjarom registrations all print Daerah: Kuala Langat, the only street address on offer is in Telok Panglima Garang which is also Kuala Langat, an agency files the project under Banting which is the district town, and the later phase’s write-up says Kuala Langat in terms. But the error is live on the primary source, and it matters: two different districts mean two different local authorities, two different assessment regimes, two different plan-approval prefixes and two different rows of the foreign-buyer zone table. TWO: THERE ARE TWO PHASES AND THEY ARE NOT THE SAME BUILDING. Phase 1 is 23,499 to 36,884 sq ft of built-up, 3 tonnes/m², a 12.2 m eave, 300 to 600 A and three storeys. The later phase, launched 26 September 2025, is about 3,476 to 3,879 sq ft, about 1 tonne/m², an eave of about 6 m, 150 A and two storeys — 34 units on 5 acres. SAME NAME. A THIRD OF THE FLOOR LOADING. A TENTH OF THE SIZE. Every specification row on this page carries its phase, and no figure from one is ever allowed to stand for the other. THREE: “Jenjarom Industrial Park” WITHOUT the I&I prefix IS A DIFFERENT, 283-ACRE PARK with phases 3A and 3B and a type schedule this project does not have. It cannot be the same development as 15.2 acres, and it is refused by name here. AND WHAT IS NOT PUBLISHED, PRINTED AS SUCH: no price, at all, on this page — because there is no filing and therefore no filed statutory price range, and the house rule where none exists is to publish nothing. The mukim is unpublished even though the lot numbers are. The completion date has FOUR published answers and the developer’s own target has already passed with no public status. The defect-liability period is published at TWO different lengths, 24 months against 12. And the register field that would settle lateness in one word CANNOT BE CHECKED, because there is no record to carry it.

ENTIRELY OUTSIDE the Housing Development Act 1966 — a factory is not housingNO KPKT licence — NEVER ISSUED, not lapsed, to any company in this groupAmpersand CONTROLLED: the control query returned L & T REALTY SDN. BHD. intact, so the zero is realFREEHOLD on SIX surfaces, ZERO dissentINDIVIDUAL TITLE — and SINGLE-SOURCED to an agent blogLots 1141, 1142, 1143 · about 15.2 acresPhase 1 floor loading 3 t/m² · refined to 3 / 1.5 / 1 t/m² by zonePhase 1: 12.2 m eave · 600 A / 300 A · 23,499–36,884 sq ft · 3 storeys⚠ Later phase: ~1 t/m² · ~6 m eave · 150 A · 3,476–3,879 sq ft · 2 storeys · 34 units on 5 acres⚠ The developer’s own site says KUALA LANGAT on one page and KLANG on anotherDaerah Kuala Langat — ZONE 2, residential floor RM2,000,000Foreign buyers: an OPEN QUESTION on an industrial title — not a RM figureNO PRICE ON THIS PAGE AT ALL — and the developer’s own pages carry none eitherCompletion: FOUR published answers, and the developer’s own target has PASSEDDefect liability: 24 months vs 12 months — a contractual term published at 2×GDV above RM150 million — and no cost figure is published or printedNO IMAGE ON THIS PAGE — and the reason is attribution, not reachability

WhatsApp Louis about I&I Jenjarom Industrial Park The register position The two phases, separated

Louis Koh, Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency · +6010 906 6685. Every figure on this page names the publisher that carried it AND the phase it belongs to, and where two sources disagree this page prints both.

Never issued, not lapsed — and the ampersand was controlled forThe register was searched on three name axes against a healthy positive control, and the ampersand was tested FIRST with a known ampersanded licensee, which came back intact as L & T REALTY SDN. BHD., code 30331. So the zero is a real zero. Not lapsed. Not expired. Never issued.

All three product-class questions answeredFreehold on six surfaces with no dissent. Individual title, single-sourced and flagged. Floor loading 3 tonnes/m² from the developer, refined by an agent to 3 / 1.5 / 1 t/m² by zone. Plus published lot numbers, which makes a title search actionable rather than theoretical.

The developer’s own site contradicts itself on the DISTRICT/development/ says Kuala Langat. /our-projects/ says Klang. Kuala Langat is right on five independent legs — but a buyer reading the developer’s own site cannot tell which council’s records to check, which assessment rates apply, or which foreign-buyer zone row to look up.

TWO PHASES, and they are not comparablePhase 1: 23,499–36,884 sq ft, 3 t/m², 12.2 m eave, 600/300 A, three storeys. The later phase: ~3,476–3,879 sq ft, ~1 t/m², ~6 m eave, 150 A, two storeys, 34 units on 5 acres. A third of the floor loading. A tenth of the size. Every row here is labelled.

The register fields are STRUCTURALLY UNAVAILABLE, not cleanperatusSiap cannot be read. pindaanTempohSerahKosong cannot exist. iklan is a field with no record to sit in. And status.keseluruhan cannot be read, so Lewat CANNOT BE CHECKED — which matters here more than usual, because the developer’s own 2025 Q4 target has passed and nothing public says what happened.

A clean price position, found by checking rather than assumedThe developer’s own Phase 1 page and its division page carry NO price figure at all — no “from”, no asterisk, no footnote. That was checked specifically, and it is a clean pass rather than an absence of checking. The barred material is all on agent surfaces, and none of it is reproduced here.

Answer block

I&I Jenjarom Industrial Park, at a glance

Every cell names the publisher that carried it AND the phase it belongs to. Where a register field would normally sit, this table says STRUCTURALLY UNAVAILABLE rather than not flagged — there is no record to carry the field, and an absent record is not a clean bill of health. Where two sources disagree, both are printed.

Legal regime: ENTIRELY OUTSIDE the Housing Development Act 1966The Act reaches housing accommodation. A factory is not housing accommodation, so no licence, no permit and no registration CAN be issued for this park. The correct legal position, not a missing document.
Developer licence: NEVER ISSUED — not lapsedNo company in this group holds or has held a KPKT developer licence: not the holding company, not the developing entity, not the group’s other operating company. Established on three name axes against a healthy positive control — AND with the ampersand controlled for first, which returned L & T REALTY SDN. BHD., code 30331, intact. So the zero is real.
KPKT registration: NONE — no record of any kindNo registered scheme name, no project code, no register entry. And it cannot exist, because there is no licence under which it could be registered.
Advertising & sales permit: DOES NOT EXISTSo lapse-versus-current CANNOT BE ASSESSED, and nothing on this page may be presented as permit validity. Nothing about this park was lodged with the ministry before it was advertised.
Filed statutory advertisement: NONE — and none is required outside the ActNo filed brochure, no filed newspaper advertisement, no statutory particulars block, no filed price band, no filed completion date. There is no primary document to read on the product, so every product figure here is labelled with its publisher.
Statutory sale contract: NONE — no Schedule G or HNo statutory delivery period. No statutory liquidated damages. No section 7A housing development account. No statutory defect liability period. No Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. ⚠ The developer DOES publish a CONTRACTUAL defect-liability period of 24 months — and an agent publishes 12. A contractual term in place of a statutory one, published at twice the length by two sources.
The contracting entity: I&I Industrial Development Sdn BhdNamed as the developer of this project specifically, on the developer’s own division page and its projects page. ⚠ AND ITS OWN REGISTRATION NUMBER IS PUBLISHED NOWHERE. The only registration number anywhere on the site belongs to I&I Group Sdn. Bhd., 202101002186 (1402484T) — the HOLDING company, not the company a buyer would be contracting with.
Tenure: FREEHOLD — SIX surfaces, ZERO dissentThe developer’s own division page and its Phase 1 page (for both the detached and the semi-detached types), four agent surfaces, and the later phase’s launch write-up. No lease, no term, no expiry — because there is none. This is the cleanest single answer on the page.
Title type: INDIVIDUAL TITLE — SINGLE-SOURCEDOne agent blog, 26 September 2025. NOT the developer. Flagged as single-sourced everywhere it appears on this page. On standalone factory units it is the likely answer, and one source is still one source.
Land-use descriptor: “medium industrial urbanized area” (developer) · “light and medium industry” (agent)⚠ A descriptor dressed as a planning classification. NO gazetted zoning reference is cited by anybody, and the title’s own express condition and category of land use are UNPUBLISHED.
Lot numbers: LOT 1141, LOT 1142, LOT 1143Published on the developer’s own projects page. That makes a land-title search actionable rather than theoretical — and it is unusual: nothing else in this series’ unlicensed set publishes its lots.
Mukim: NOT PUBLISHEDThe lot numbers are published and the mukim they sit in is not — so a title search is still required before the lot numbers can be used.
Restriction in interest, charge, chargee: NOT PUBLISHEDFreehold removes one class of consent risk. It does not remove a restriction in interest, which can sit on a freehold industrial title too — and no source says whether one does here.
Land area, the parcel: 15.2 acres (division page) · “about 15.25 acres” (projects page)The developer’s own two pages, disagreeing by 0.05 acre. Trivial in size, recorded in principle. The later phase is a separate 5 acres. Plot ratio and lot coverage are NOT PUBLISHED, so no density figure appears here.
Units, Phase 1: CONTRADICTEDThe developer’s projects page says “about 18 semi-detached factory units of 23,500–28,000 sq ft”. Its own Phase 1 page lists FOUR types including a DETACHED one at 36,884 sq ft and no unit count at all. ⚠ And nothing anywhere is 28,000 sq ft. The projects page also calls the project “planning stage” and targets planning by the first half of 2023 — it is a stale page the developer never updated. That is the likely explanation and it is NOT a confirmed one.
Units, the later phase: 34 units on 5 acresOne agent blog, 26 September 2025 — the only source for this phase at all. Every figure for it is single-sourced to that write-up.
Storeys: Phase 1: THREE · later phase: TWOPhase 1’s ground, first and second floor areas are all published separately. The later phase is ground plus mezzanine.
Built-up, Phase 1: 23,499 – 36,884 sq ftThe developer, and matched figure-for-figure by an agency and by two agent listings. Type A detached 36,884; Type B1, B2 and B3 semi-detached 23,499 each.
Built-up, later phase: ≈ 3,476 – 3,879 sq ftSingle-sourced, and the source itself writes “approx.”, so the approximation is the source’s and is carried as one.
Land per unit, Phase 1: 30,448 – 57,063 sq ftType A 57,063; B1 and B2 30,448; B3 34,325. Developer, matched exactly by an agency and by both agent listings.
FLOOR LOADING, Phase 1: 3 tonnes/m² on the ground slab, hardener finishThe developer’s own Phase 1 page — and an agent REFINES it rather than contradicting it: 3 t/m² in the ground-floor PRODUCTION area, 1.5 t/m² in the FRONT setback, 1 t/m² at the SIDES and REAR. The most granular floor-loading data in this series. ⚠ Quoting “3 tonnes/m²” without the zones, or without the phase, will mislead.
FLOOR LOADING, later phase: 10 kN/m² — which the source itself glosses as about 1 tonne/m²⚠ A THIRD of Phase 1’s. Single-sourced. This is the single most dangerous figure to read across between the two phases.
Eave height: Phase 1: 12.2 m / 40 ft — and CONTRADICTED at 9 m / 30 ft12.2 m on the developer’s own Phase 1 page; 9 m / 30 ft on one agent surface, for the same product. The developer’s figure should be preferred and the disagreement is printed. The later phase’s ≈6 m is a DIFFERENT PHASE and is not a contradiction.
Power supply: Phase 1: 600 A (detached) · 300 A (semi-detached) · later phase: 3-phase, 150 APublished per type by the developer for Phase 1 — which is more than most industrial projects in this series manage at all. The later phase’s 150 A is single-sourced.
Other Phase 1 specifications: Clip-lock Bluescope steel roof, designed to support future solar · finished floor level 4.6 m above sea level · main-road frontage 20.2 m / 66 ft · 6 ft brickwall or mesh fencing · concrete driveway with piling · stainless-steel gutters · 6-passenger liftAll from the developer, and the 20.2 m frontage is agreed identically by three surfaces.
Defect liability period: 24 months (developer) vs 12 months (agent)⚠ CONTRACTUAL, not statutory — and the two published figures differ by a factor of two. That is exactly why the statutory version mattered. Both printed. Only the SPA settles it.
Completion: FOUR published answers, and the earliest has PASSED2025 Q4 — the developer, on both its pages. early 2025 and “36 months from SPA stamping” — one agent listing, now marked expired. 2026 — another agent surface. 2026 Q4 — the later phase. None is contractual. And the developer’s own target has passed with NO source stating a completion, a CCC or a percentage complete.
Late-delivery flag Lewat: CANNOT BE CHECKEDNot “not flagged”. Not “clean”. And it would have mattered here more than on most pages: the developer’s own target has passed, and on a licensed project this one field would answer the question in a word.
Construction stage and take-up: STRUCTURALLY UNAVAILABLENo percentage-complete exists on any public surface. And no take-up claim is made by anybody either — so there is not even a “sold is not built” problem to flag here, which is worth saying because it is unusual.
Price: NOT PUBLISHED ON THIS PAGE, AT ALLNo advertisement was ever filed, so there is no filed statutory selling-price range — and where none exists the house rule is to publish no price and to say that is the rule. AND A CLEAN PASS WORTH RECORDING: the developer’s own Phase 1 page and division page carry NO price figure at all. Checked specifically.
Gross development value: Above RM150 million (developer’s own projects page)Published here deliberately, because a development value on its own is innocuous. ⚠ NO development COST figure is published by anybody, so there is no pair — and no margin can be derived from this page. Had a cost figure existed it would have been withheld.
Facilities: There is no facility schedule, and that is the findingThe developer publishes a SPECIFICATION table and nothing resembling a shared-facility list. No clubhouse, no F&B, no lifestyle hub, no prayer room, no sports amenity, no conference facility is claimed by anybody. A gated environment is claimed by one agent surface. ⚠ Guardhouse, CCTV, EV charging, rainwater harvesting and sewerage, water and gas provision: NOT CLAIMED BY ANYONE, developer or agent.
Green rating: NO GreenRE entry — and the honest answer SPLITS by phaseFor the LATER phase the zero is a GENUINE negative: it launched 26 September 2025 with a 2026 Q4 target, so any design-stage provisional would post well inside the readable window on all four tiers. For PHASE 1 the zero is INCONCLUSIVE on three of the four tiers: its assets date to March–August 2023 and its target was 2025 Q4, so a provisional would most likely date 2023 — BELOW the oldest readable row on Bronze, Silver and Gold. Only Platinum, readable to 2015, rules Phase 1 out properly. And nobody — not the developer, not one agent — makes a green claim for this project at all, so there is no rating claim to check.
Awards: NONE claimed, for this project or for any project of this group, by anybodySo there is no award-borrowing trap here, which is unusual in this series and is stated rather than left as a silence.
Imagery: NONE on this pageAnd the reason is unusual: the constraint was ATTRIBUTION, not reachability. The developer’s media library is wide open — and it serves FOUR different projects out of the same folders. Full reasoning in the register section below.

Ask Louis for the contract, the title search and the price list

Explore related topics

Louis covers Telok Panglima Garang, the Kuala Langat industrial belt and the whole Klang Valley — residential, commercial and industrial. These are the pages a buyer looking at a factory lot usually reads next.

Six things this page exists to tell you

Three of the six are good news that no competing page bothers to state precisely, and three are traps that will cost you money if nobody points them out. That is the whole argument for reading a page like this one before reading a marketing site.

⚠

There is no licence, no registration and no permit — and here is what that costs you

No prescribed Schedule G or H contract. No statutory delivery period. No statutory liquidated damages if delivery runs late. No section 7A housing development account ring-fencing your progress payments. No statutory defect liability period. No filed completion date. No KPKT register entry to check. No Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. Every one of those is a creature of the Housing Development Act 1966, and the Act reaches housing accommodation. A factory is not housing accommodation. So this is not a developer failing to file something — it is a product class the Act does not cover. AND THE ANSWER HERE IS “NEVER ISSUED”, NOT “LAPSED”: no company in this group has ever held a KPKT developer licence. There is nothing to renew and nothing that expired. What you get instead is the developer’s own contract — whose defect-liability period is itself published at two different lengths — and whatever your own solicitor negotiates in it.

🔍

The zero is trustworthy, because the ampersand was controlled for

A two-letter brand name with an ampersand in it is exactly the search that fails silently. A mangled query returns nothing, and nothing looks identical to a real zero. So before trusting the zero, the register was queried with a KNOWN ampersanded licensee as a control — and it came back INTACT, naming L & T REALTY SDN. BHD., code 30331, with two registered projects. The endpoint handles an ampersand correctly. So the zero on this group’s name is a REAL ZERO and not a URL-encoding artefact. Three name axes were searched: the brand itself, the group’s other operating company, and the locality. All against a healthy positive control that returned 16 licensees and 22 projects. The locality search returned exactly one licensee — and it was not this developer. It was the neighbouring township’s, and that record is what settled the district. The register was searched properly, and saying so is part of the finding.

🔑

All three questions the product class makes unavoidable are ANSWERED

On an industrial lot there are three questions you cannot buy without: tenure, title and floor loading. Most unlicensed industrial projects answer none of them. This one answers all three, and two of the three come from the developer’s own surface. TENURE: FREEHOLD, on SIX independent surfaces with ZERO dissent — the developer’s division page, its Phase 1 page for both built forms, four agent surfaces and the later phase’s write-up. No lease, no term, no expiry, because there is none. TITLE: INDIVIDUAL TITLE — and this one is SINGLE-SOURCED to an agent blog rather than to the developer, which is flagged here and at every other point it appears. The mukim and the title’s express condition are still unpublished. FLOOR LOADING: 3 tonnes/m² on the ground slab from the developer, REFINED by an agent to 3 t/m² in the production area, 1.5 t/m² in the front setback and 1 t/m² at the sides and rear. The agent does not contradict the developer; it adds resolution. And the lot numbers are published: 1141, 1142, 1143. That turns a title search from a theory into a thing you can actually order.

📄

The developer’s own website puts this park in TWO DIFFERENT DISTRICTS

Its division page says “Jenjarom town, KUALA LANGAT”. Its projects page says “Jenjarom, KLANG”. The same company, two pages, two districts. KUALA LANGAT IS CORRECT, and the evidence is overwhelming: SIX filed registrations for the adjacent township all print Daerah: Kuala Langat; the only street address published for this project is in Telok Panglima Garang, which seven other filed registrations place in Kuala Langat; an agency files the project under Banting, which is the district town; and the later phase’s write-up states Kuala Langat in terms. But the error is LIVE on the primary source, and it is printed here unadjudicated because of what it costs. Those are two different districts, two different local authorities, two different assessment regimes, two different plan-approval prefix series — and two different rows of the foreign-buyer zone table. They happen to carry the same residential figure, so the NUMBER does not move; but a client told “Zone 1” and then checking the circular will not find Kuala Langat there. What closes it absolutely: a Majlis Perbandaran Kuala Langat plan-approval reference, or a title search on Lots 1141 to 1143 giving the mukim.

⚙

TWO PHASES share one name and almost nothing else

This is the single biggest way to be misled about this project, so it gets its own card. PHASE 1: detached and semi-detached three-storey factories. Built-up 23,499 to 36,884 sq ft on land of 30,448 to 57,063 sq ft. Floor loading 3 tonnes/m². Eave 12.2 m. Power 600 A for the detached type and 300 A for the semi-detached. About 15.2 acres. THE LATER PHASE, launched 26 September 2025: single- and dual-frontage LINK factories. Built-up about 3,476 to 3,879 sq ft on land of about 2,705 to 3,107 sq ft. Floor loading about 1 tonne/m². Eave about 6 m. Power 150 A, three-phase. Two storeys. 34 units on 5 acres. A THIRD OF THE FLOOR LOADING. A TENTH OF THE BUILT-UP. HALF THE POWER. HALF THE STOREYS. Any page that merges them misleads on every number an industrial buyer actually cares about, so every specification row here carries its phase and no figure from one is ever allowed to stand for the other. A third phase exists as a filename in the developer’s media library and is described by nobody — recorded as referenced-and-undescribed, and nothing is invented for it.

📅

The completion target has PASSED, and the one field that would answer it cannot be checked

FOUR published completion answers. The developer says 2025 Q4 on both its pages. One agent listing says early 2025 and, separately, “36 months from SPA stamping” — and that listing is now marked expired. Another agent surface says 2026. The later phase says 2026 Q4. The developer’s own target has passed, and NO source states a completion, a CCC or a percentage complete. AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHERE A LICENSED PROJECT WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION IN ONE WORD. On a registered scheme the ministry’s own overall-status field carries a late flag. Here it CANNOT BE CHECKED, because there is no record to carry it — which is not the same as “not flagged” and is not the same as “clean”. The neighbouring licensed township 250 m away has that field on all six of its phases. This park has it on none, lawfully. Ask for the construction status in writing before you pay anything.

Project DNA

What the developer publishes, what the agents add, and what nobody publishes at all

On a licensed housing development this section is a statutory spine. Here there is no filing at all — and unusually, the developer’s own surface carries enough to build a real spine anyway: tenure, title descriptor, lot numbers, a four-type schedule with per-floor areas, floor loading, eave height and power per type. Read the three columns as three kinds of knowledge: what the developer publishes itself, what the agents add or refine, and what nobody publishes. Nothing in the third column is estimated, interpolated or borrowed from one of this group’s other projects. AND EVERY ROW CARRIES ITS PHASE. Phase 1 and the later link-factory phase are not the same building.

1141–1143the published LOT NUMBERS — unusual, and actionable

15.2acres, Phase 1 — vs “about 15.25” on the same developer’s other page

3 t/m²Phase 1 floor loading — refined to 3 / 1.5 / 1 by zone

12.2 mPhase 1 eave — and one agent says 9 m

600 / 300amps per unit, Phase 1 — detached / semi-detached

23,499–36,884sq ft built-up, PHASE 1 ONLY

3,476–3,879sq ft built-up, THE LATER PHASE — a tenth of the size

34units on 5 acres — the later phase, single-sourced

24 / 12months defect liability — developer vs agent

0licences ever issued, registrations, permits and published prices on this page

Three kinds of knowledge about one industrial park

The left column is the developer’s own published surface and it is unusually good for an unlicensed industrial project. The middle column is what agents add — sometimes refining the developer, sometimes contradicting it, and always labelled. The right column is what nobody publishes, each line paired with the document that would close it.

PUBLISHED BY THE DEVELOPER ITSELF

the developer’s own division page and its Phase 1 page, read 21 October 2026 — plus its own stale projects page, which is a different vintage rather than worthless

FREEHOLD, stated on BOTH its division page and its Phase 1 page, and for the detached AND the semi-detached types.
I&I Industrial Development Sdn Bhd is named as the developer of THIS project specifically — and the group names a different developing entity for each of its three projects, which is more than most unlicensed developers manage. ⚠ Its own registration number is published NOWHERE.
I&I Group Sdn. Bhd., 202101002186 (1402484T), in the footer copyright of every page — the HOLDING company, not the company a buyer contracts with.
LOTS 1141, 1142 and 1143, on the projects page.
About 15.2 acres on the division page; “about 15.25 acres” on the projects page. Its own two pages, 0.05 acre apart.
“Jenjarom town, KUALA LANGAT”, on the division page, and “medium industrial urbanized area” as the land-use descriptor.
⚠ “Jenjarom, KLANG” on the projects page — the same company contradicting itself on the DISTRICT. Printed, not resolved away.
THE FULL PHASE 1 TYPE SCHEDULE, with per-floor areas: Type A detached, land 57,063 sq ft, built-up 36,884 (ground 31,365; first 2,759; second 2,759), 600 A. Type B1 and B2 semi-detached, land 30,448, built-up 23,499 (17,998 / 2,751 / 2,751), 300 A. Type B3 semi-detached, land 34,325, built-up 23,499, 300 A.
⚠ AND THE DEVELOPER’S OWN ARITHMETIC DOES NOT CLOSE, BY 1 SQ FT, IN BOTH DIRECTIONS: Type A’s three floors sum to 36,883 against a stated 36,884, and the B types sum to 23,500 against a stated 23,499. Almost certainly rounding — and recorded, because a schedule that disagrees with itself is the kind of thing this page prints rather than tidies. The developer’s stated totals are used, not this agent’s sums.
⚠ NO UNIT COUNT on the Phase 1 page at all. And the projects page says “about 18 semi-detached factory units of 23,500–28,000 sq ft” — a figure that does not fit a four-type schedule containing a detached unit, and a built-up top end (28,000) that appears nowhere else on earth. That page also says “planning stage” and targets planning by the first half of 2023, so it is stale. UNRESOLVED.
FLOOR LOADING: 3 tonnes/m² on the ground slab, hardener finish.
EAVE HEIGHT: 12.2 m / 40 ft.
Clip-lock roofing system, Bluescope steel, designed to support future solar.
Finished floor level 4.6 m above sea level.
Main-road frontage 20.2 m / 66 ft — and this one is agreed identically by three surfaces.
6 ft brickwall or mesh fencing · concrete driveway with piling · stainless-steel gutters · 6-passenger lift.
DEFECT LIABILITY PERIOD: 24 MONTHS, in the semi-detached section. Contractual, not statutory.
Target completion 2025 Q4, on both pages.
GROSS DEVELOPMENT VALUE above RM150 million, on the projects page.
SKVE Telok Panglima Garang toll about 2.7 km — the only distance the developer publishes.
⚠ AND A GENUINE CLEAN PASS ON PRICE: its Phase 1 page and its division page carry NO price figure at all — no “from”, no asterisk, no footnote. Checked specifically rather than assumed.
⚠ Its “Easy Access & Strategic Location” section is IMAGES ONLY, with not one text distance beneath it. That is a finding about the developer.
No terms page, no permit page, no statutory page of any kind exists on this host.
Three brochure PDFs sit in its own media library and ALL THREE are image-only scans with no machine-readable text layer — so the specification and title particulars they almost certainly contain could not be read. A PDF in a library is a lead, not a source, until its text layer is confirmed.

ADDED OR REFINED BY AGENT SURFACES, and labelled as such

one agent blog of 26 September 2025 — the ONLY source for the later phase · two agent listings, one now marked expired · one agency page · one listings site

INDIVIDUAL TITLE — the agent blog. SINGLE-SOURCED, and not from the developer. Flagged wherever it appears.
Permitted use “light and medium industry” — the agent blog. Single-sourced, and the title’s actual express condition is unpublished.
FLOOR LOADING, REFINED: 3 t/m² in the ground-floor PRODUCTION area, 1.5 t/m² in the FRONT setback, 1 t/m² at the SIDES and REAR. This does NOT contradict the developer’s flat 3 t/m² — it adds resolution to it, and it is the most granular floor-loading data in this series.
Built-up and land figures matched EXACTLY — an agency and both agent listings reproduce 30,448–57,063 sq ft of land and 23,499–36,884 sq ft of built-up figure-for-figure. Independent corroboration of the developer’s own schedule.
“3-storey design factory” and “300–600 amp” — the agency, corroborating the storeys and the power.
Address: “Off Jalan Sungai Rambai, TELOK PANGLIMA GARANG” — one agent listing. The only street address published for this project anywhere, and it is also Daerah Kuala Langat.
“Jenjarom, BANTING” — the agency. Banting is the district town of Kuala Langat, so this points the same way.
⚠ EAVE 9 m / 30 ft — one listings site, against the developer’s 12.2 m, for the same product. A real contradiction. The developer’s figure is preferred and the disagreement is printed.
⚠ DEFECT LIABILITY 12 MONTHS — the same listings site, against the developer’s 24. A contractual term published at twice the length.
⚠ Completion “early 2025” and “36 months from SPA stamping” — one agent listing, now marked expired. And 2026 on the listings site. Both against the developer’s 2025 Q4.
“Its construction arm Total Modern Builders has built many factories” — one agent listing. ⚠ “Many” is unquantified, no project list or reference is given, and the relationship between that contractor and the group’s own construction and engineering company is NOT EXPLAINED BY ANYBODY.
THE ENTIRE LATER PHASE comes from ONE agent blog of 26 September 2025: single- and dual-frontage link factories; land about 2,705 and 3,107 sq ft; ground floor about 2,699 and 3,102; first floor about 777 each; total built-up about 3,476 and 3,879 sq ft; facing south-east and north-west; two storeys, ground plus mezzanine; 34 units on 5 acres; floor loading 10 kN/m², which the source itself glosses as about 1 tonne/m²; eave about 6 m with a higher roof apex; power three-phase, 150 A; target 2026 Q4; freehold; individual title; light and medium industry; a gated environment.
⚠ Every figure in that list is single-sourced, and the “approx.” is the source’s own. None of it describes Phase 1.
Four distances, all from that same blog and therefore all the LATER phase’s parcel: the adjacent licensed township 250 m, the SKVE Jenjarom interchange 2.4 km, the WCE to SKVE interchange 3.8 km, and Port Klang about 30 km — and the source itself writes “about” on the last one.
⚠ “FLOOD FREE” is an agent claim and its ONLY support is a RELATIVE level: a finished floor level of 4.6 m against 3.3 m on the adjacent road. That is a comparison, not a flood study. Printed as the agent’s claim, never as a fact.
⚠ One agent surface prints the project under a URL carrying a DIFFERENT developer’s brand slug. A slug is not evidence and no conclusion is drawn — it is recorded because that is exactly the kind of cross-contamination that puts one developer’s photographs on another developer’s page.
⚠ And one agent surface calls the later phase’s product a semi-detached factory in its structured type field and a terrace factory in its description text, for a product the originating blog calls a LINK factory. Three words for one thing. Unresolved.
⚠ Two further surfaces name this project and are not readable from here at all, which is stated rather than left as a gap.

NOT PUBLISHED BY ANYBODY — each with the document that would close it

and the first four decide whether a bank will lend, whether the building can do the job, and whether you can sell it on

THE MUKIM · the title’s express condition and category of land use · any restriction in interest · the charge and chargee — a land-title search on Lots 1141, 1142 and 1143. ONE instrument closes all four, and the lot numbers to order it with are already published.
INDIVIDUAL TITLE, CONFIRMED — the title search, or the SPA. Currently single-sourced to an agent blog.
The approving authority BY NAME · the building-plan approval reference · whether a development order has issued · the completion-certificate pathway — the Majlis Perbandaran Kuala Langat planning record. That would ALSO close the Kuala Langat versus Klang contradiction absolutely.
I&I Industrial Development Sdn Bhd’S OWN REGISTRATION NUMBER — a company search. Only the HOLDING company’s number is published, and the holding company is not the counterparty.
The relationship between the named construction arm, the group’s own construction and engineering company, and the developer — a company search, or the group’s own corporate page, which does not explain it.
PHASE 1’S UNIT COUNT and the per-type counts — the developer’s own catalogue, which is in its media library and has NO TEXT LAYER.
The SPA’s delivery period, its late-delivery damages rate and its defect-liability period, authoritatively — the SPA itself. Non-Act means these are contractual, and the two published defect-liability figures differ by a factor of two.
Construction stage and completion status, against a target that has already passed — a site visit, a CCC record, or the developer’s own sales pack.
Roller-shutter dimensions · dock levellers · loading-bay count · turning radius · sprinkler and fire class · water, sewerage and gas provision · lorry and car bays per unit · plot ratio and lot coverage — the specification sheet.
A guardhouse or security post · CCTV · EV charging · rainwater harvesting — NOT CLAIMED BY ANYONE, developer or agent. Their absence from both sides is itself the finding: this is a plain industrial park with a specification and no amenity programme.
PHASE 3, entirely — it exists only as a filename in the developer’s media library. No units, no types, no sizes, no timing. Recorded as referenced-and-undescribed, and nothing is invented.
The service-charge and sinking-fund regime, and who manages the park — the SPA and the deed of mutual covenants.
Whether the “flood free” claim rests on anything but a relative floor level — a drainage authority flood study, or the development order’s drainage conditions.
Distances to the airport, the cargo terminals and the ports, from THIS parcel — the developer’s own location sheet. Four of the five published distances are the LATER phase’s, and no rail station is even NAMED by anybody — which on an industrial product is a non-issue, and is worth noting as one.

The documented sequence — and the target that has already passed

2021I&I Group Sdn. Bhd. is incorporated, on the evidence of its own registration number 202101002186 (1402484T). A PRIVATE company: no stock-exchange listing, no announcement, no annual report — the listed-parent route has no entry point here at all

1H 2023The developer’s projects page targets “planning” by the first half of 2023 and calls the project “planning stage”. That page is still live today and is the one that says “Klang” and “about 18 units”. It is a different VINTAGE, not a different project

Mar–Aug 2023The Phase 1 imagery and the three image-only brochure PDFs are uploaded to the developer’s media library. This window is why the green-register zero is INCONCLUSIVE for Phase 1 rather than negative — a 2023 provisional would sit below the oldest readable row on three of the four tiers

2024The agency page dates the launch of the three-storey design factory to 2024

26 Sep 2025THE LATER PHASE IS LAUNCHED — single- and dual-frontage link factories, 34 units on 5 acres, about 3,476 to 3,879 sq ft, about 1 tonne/m², an eave of about 6 m and 150 A. Same name as Phase 1 and almost nothing else in common

2025 Q4PHASE 1’S OWN TARGET COMPLETION, on both of the developer’s pages — AND IT HAS PASSED. No source states a completion, a certificate of completion and compliance, or a percentage complete. This is exactly where a licensed project’s late flag would answer the question in one word, and here it CANNOT BE CHECKED

2026Completion, on one listings site — the third of four published answers

21 Oct 2026Everything on this page read and recorded. The register searched on three name axes against a healthy positive control, with the ampersand controlled for FIRST; the neighbouring licensed township’s six registrations walked to a clean close; all four green tiers read in one session; the developer’s own three pages, its sitemap and its media index read in full

2026 Q4The LATER phase’s target completion — the fourth published answer, and the only one still in the future. Single-sourced to the launch write-up, and not contractual: there is no statutory contract here to carry a delivery date

1 Mar 2029The NEIGHBOURING licensed township’s developer licence runs to this date — a date about a DIFFERENT company 250 m away, printed here only to show what a licence period looks like. It says nothing whatever about this park

UnpublishedPhase 1’s actual unit count, its per-type counts, the mukim, the approving authority, the plan reference and the SPA’s own terms. A title search on Lots 1141 to 1143 and the local-authority planning record close most of it

Ask Louis for the phase schedule and a title search

Layouts

The unit schedule — TWO PHASES, kept apart on purpose

This is the most important section on the page to read slowly, because the two phases share a name and differ by a factor of three on floor loading, a factor of two on eave height and power, and roughly a factor of seven to ten on size. Phase 1’s schedule is the developer’s own and is corroborated figure-for-figure by three agent surfaces. The later phase’s schedule comes from ONE agent blog and every figure in it is single-sourced, with the approximations the source’s own. There is no filed schedule to set beside either of them, because there is no filing. No square-metre conversion has been performed here, and no unit COUNT is mapped to a type letter, because no source maps one.

NO LAYOUT IS PUBLISHED
and no render whose subject this page could attribute

PHASE 1 · `Type A` — DETACHED factory

Land 57,063 sq ft · built-up 36,884 sq ft (ground 31,365, first 2,759, second 2,759) · 600 A · three storeys · developer’s own Phase 1 page

PHASE 1the largest type600 ampsunit count NOT stated

The only detached type, and the only one at 600 A. Floor loading 3 tonnes/m² on the ground slab with a hardener finish, refined by an agent to 3 t/m² in the production area, 1.5 t/m² in the front setback and 1 t/m² at the sides and rear. Eave 12.2 m / 40 ft on the developer’s figure. ⚠ The three floor areas sum to 36,883 against a stated 36,884. One square foot, almost certainly rounding — recorded rather than tidied, and the developer’s stated total is the one used. HOW MANY Type A units exist is NOT STATED by anybody.

Ask Louis for the Phase 1 type schedule

NO LAYOUT IS PUBLISHED
for this type or any other

PHASE 1 · `Type B1` and `Type B2` — SEMI-DETACHED

Land 30,448 sq ft each · built-up 23,499 sq ft (ground 17,998, first 2,751, second 2,751) · 300 A · three storeys

PHASE 1identical land and built-up300 ampsunit count NOT stated

Two type codes with identical land areas and identical built-ups, distinguished by nothing the developer publishes. What actually separates a B1 from a B2 is not stated by anybody, and this page does not guess. Same 3 tonnes/m² slab, same 12.2 m eave, same 24-month contractual defect-liability period as the rest of Phase 1. ⚠ The three floor areas sum to 23,500 against a stated 23,499 — the same one-square-foot gap, in the other direction.

Ask Louis what separates a B1 from a B2

NO LAYOUT IS PUBLISHED
and nothing is inferred here

PHASE 1 · `Type B3` — SEMI-DETACHED, larger lot

Land 34,325 sq ft · built-up 23,499 sq ft · 300 A · three storeys

PHASE 1the larger semi-detached lotsame built-up as B1 and B2

The same building on a bigger piece of land: built-up identical to B1 and B2 at 23,499 sq ft, on 34,325 sq ft instead of 30,448. So the extra land is external area rather than extra floor — which on an industrial lot is usually yard, and nobody says that, so this page does not say it either. Unit count NOT STATED.

Ask Louis for the B3 site layout

A DIFFERENT PRODUCT
at a tenth of Phase 1’s size

⚠ THE LATER PHASE · `Single Frontage` LINK factory

Land ≈ 2,705 sq ft (31.6′ × 85.6′) · built-up ≈ 3,476 sq ft (ground ≈ 2,699, first ≈ 777) · 150 A, three-phase · TWO storeys · SINGLE-SOURCED

THE LATER PHASE — NOT PHASE 1~1 tonne/m²~6 m eavesingle-sourced, approximations are the source’s

READ THE TAGS BEFORE THE FIGURES. This is NOT Phase 1. Floor loading about 1 tonne/m² — a THIRD of Phase 1’s. Eave about 6 m — HALF of Phase 1’s, with a higher roof apex. Power 150 A — half of the semi-detached type’s and a quarter of the detached type’s. Two storeys, ground plus mezzanine, against Phase 1’s three. One main entrance facade, facing south-east. Freehold, individual title, light and medium industry, a gated environment, target 2026 Q4. 34 units on 5 acres, which is a SEPARATE parcel from Phase 1’s 15.2 acres. ⚠ Every figure here comes from ONE agent blog of 26 September 2025, and the “approximately” is that source’s own word. Nothing here is corroborated by the developer, and nothing here describes Phase 1.

Ask Louis which phase is actually on sale

A DIFFERENT PRODUCT
two entrances, two storeys, a tenth of the size

⚠ THE LATER PHASE · `Dual Frontage` LINK factory

Land ≈ 3,107 sq ft (31.6′ × 98.3′) · built-up ≈ 3,879 sq ft (ground ≈ 3,102, first ≈ 777) · 150 A, three-phase · TWO storeys · SINGLE-SOURCED

THE LATER PHASE — NOT PHASE 1front AND rear entrancesfacing north-westsingle-sourced

The same later-phase building with front AND rear entrances, facing north-west, on a deeper lot. Same approximately 1 tonne/m² floor loading, same approximately 6 m eave, same 150 A three-phase supply, same two storeys. How the 34 units split between single and dual frontage is NOT STATED, so no split is printed here. ⚠ Single-sourced, same as its sibling above. And one agent surface calls this product a semi-detached factory in a structured field and a terrace factory in its own description text, while the originating blog calls it a link factory. Three words for one thing, unresolved.

Ask Louis for the later phase’s unit split

NOTHING IS PUBLISHED
and nothing is invented

`Phase 3` — referenced by a filename and described by nobody

NO units, NO types, NO sizes, NO timing, NO parcel

referenced and undescribednothing inventedrecorded for honesty

The developer’s own media library contains a file whose name refers to a Phase 3, uploaded in September 2024. NO SOURCE ANYWHERE DESCRIBES IT — no units, no types, no sizes, no timing, not even a parcel. It is recorded here as referenced-and-undescribed because a buyer looking at a site plan may be shown it, and because leaving it out would be the kind of silence this page exists to avoid. Nothing about it is inferred, and no figure from either other phase is extended to it.

Ask Louis whether a Phase 3 exists

NO SPECIFICATION SHEET
is published in a readable form

What the published schedule does NOT give you

No unit count per type · no roller-shutter dimension · no dock levellers · no loading-bay count · no turning radius · no sprinkler or fire class · no water, sewerage or gas provision

the specification sheetthe real gapnothing estimated

What IS published on Phase 1 is unusually complete for an unlicensed industrial project: floor loading by zone, eave height, power per type, per-floor areas, roof system, finished floor level, frontage, fencing, driveway, gutters and a lift. What is missing is the operational half. No roller-shutter dimension by anybody. No dock levellers, no loading-bay count, no turning radius, no sprinkler class, no fire class, no water, sewerage or gas provision, no bay count, no plot ratio and no lot coverage. And the developer’s own catalogue — which almost certainly contains the lot — is in its media library as an image-only scan with no readable text.

Ask Louis for the full specification sheet

No layout, elevation, floor plan, site plan or render appears above, because the developer’s media library serves FOUR different projects out of the same folders and no generically-titled asset could be attributed to this one. Nothing here is converted into square metres. No approximation has been tightened into an exact figure — the later phase’s approximations are the source’s own. No unit count is attached to a type letter, because no source attaches one. And no figure from either phase is extended to the other.

Images

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.

Location

Lots 1141–1143, off Jalan Sungai Rambai — and the developer’s own two-district contradiction

The district here is the best-evidenced of any unlicensed industrial project this site has written — and the developer’s own website still gets it wrong on one of its pages. The usual method, reading the district off a filed building-plan approval prefix, is IMPOSSIBLE: no advertisement was ever filed, so there is no prefix, and even the sibling-registration leg fails because all six of the neighbouring township’s registrations print the plan field as Tiada maklumat. The register holds the Jenjarom district but not a Jenjarom plan prefix. So no prefix is claimed. What carries the district instead is FIVE ranked legs, the strongest of which is six filed government records — and the contradiction on the primary source is printed, not resolved away.

Open in Google Maps

Lots 1141, 1142, 1143 — publishedMukim NOT PUBLISHED — and this page does not assert oneNo coordinate publishedDaerah Kuala Langat — on five independent legs⚠ The developer’s own projects page says KLANG

Jenjarom is carried in Latin script on the Chinese version of this page as well, deliberately. It has no established Chinese rendering on this site in any script, including Latin, and inventing one would be worse than leaving it. The same applies to Telok Panglima Garang and to Jalan Sungai Rambai. The district Daerah Kuala Langat and the state DO have established renderings here and are written in Chinese on that page.

How the district was established — five ranked legs

LEG 1, THE STRONGEST: SIX FILED GOVERNMENT REGISTRATIONS for the adjacent township. SCIENTEX JENJAROM SDN. BHD., developer code 30714, licence 30714/03-2029/0056(A), carries six registered phases — 30714-1 through 30714-6 — and ALL SIX print Daerah: KUALA LANGAT, Negeri: Selangor. The walk closes cleanly: 30714-7 returns CLIENT_ERROR, reconciling against the register’s own bilanganProjek: 6. And an agent’s own figure puts the subject about 250 m from that very township. That is the decoy’s register record used as the district proof — inherit the evidence, never the verdict.
LEG 2, strong: the developer’s own division page says “Jenjarom town, KUALA LANGAT”. A primary surface, stating it in terms.
LEG 3, strong, and it points the same way: one agent listing gives the address as “Off Jalan Sungai Rambai, TELOK PANGLIMA GARANG” — and this site has already settled Telok Panglima Garang as Daerah Kuala Langat, under Majlis Perbandaran Kuala Langat, postcode 42500, on seven filed registrations. Whichever locality you take, the district is the same.
LEG 4, moderate: an agency files the project under “Jenjarom, BANTING” — and Banting is the district town of Kuala Langat.
LEG 5, moderate: the later phase’s launch write-up states “Kuala Langat district” in terms.
⚠⚠ AND THE CONTRADICTION, ON THE DEVELOPER’S OWN SITE, AGAINST ITSELF: its projects page says “Jenjarom, KLANG”. Kuala Langat has six filed registrations, a 42500-postcode precedent and three further surfaces behind it; the other reading has one sentence on a page the developer never updated — the same page that calls the project “planning stage” and targets planning by the first half of 2023. The weight is overwhelming and the contradiction is STILL PRINTED, because it is live on the primary source.
WHY IT MATTERS MORE THAN IT LOOKS: those are two different districts, two different local authorities, two different assessment regimes, two different plan-approval prefix series — and two different rows of the foreign-buyer zone table. They happen to carry the same residential figure, so the FIGURE does not move; but a buyer told one zone and then checking the circular will not find this district there. And on this site it would have landed the page on the wrong location term.
THE DOCUMENT THAT CLOSES IT ABSOLUTELY: a Majlis Perbandaran Kuala Langat plan-approval reference, or a land-title search on Lots 1141, 1142 and 1143 giving the mukim. One spelling note so nobody reads it as an error: older references in this district carry the council’s DISTRICT-council name and newer ones its MUNICIPAL-council name. The council’s own upgrade is visible across one licence’s registrations. Expect both.

Distances — five are published, and FOUR belong to the LATER phase

The adjacent licensed township — 250 m · one agent blog · single-sourced, and it is the leg that anchors the district
SKVE Jenjarom interchange — 2.4 km · the same blog · single-sourced
WCE to SKVE interchange — 3.8 km · the same blog · single-sourced
Port Klang — about 30 km · the same blog, and the source itself writes “about” · single-sourced
SKVE Telok Panglima Garang toll — about 2.7 km · the DEVELOPER’s own figure, and the only distance it publishes anywhere
⚠ FOUR OF THE FIVE COME FROM ONE AGENT BLOG, AND THAT BLOG IS WRITING ABOUT THE LATER PHASE — the 5-acre link-factory parcel, not necessarily Phase 1’s 15.2 acres. They are labelled by phase here for exactly that reason.
NOT PUBLISHED BY ANYBODY, and an industrial buyer would ask for every one: the distance and drive time to the international airport and its cargo terminals; the distance to Westports and the port’s own gates; the distance to Kuala Lumpur city centre, Shah Alam, Klang town and Banting town; and the frontage road’s own classification.
NO RAIL STATION IS EVEN NAMED by anybody — and on an industrial product that is a non-issue rather than a gap, which is itself worth saying so nobody reads the silence as a concealment.
And one standing rule, applied: NO distance, acreage, floor loading or density on this page has been read off the developer’s site plan, master plan or location map. This developer publishes all three as IMAGES, and its own “Easy Access & Strategic Location” section contains images only and NOT ONE TEXT DISTANCE. Those images are refused as imagery AND as a data source.

What the park is — and the name that is NOT this project

Phase 1: detached and semi-detached three-storey factories on Lots 1141, 1142 and 1143, about 15.2 acres, freehold, individual title on one agent source, “medium industrial” as the developer’s own descriptor.
The later phase: 34 single- and dual-frontage link factories on a separate 5 acres, two storeys, launched 26 September 2025, target 2026 Q4.
There is NO facility schedule, and that absence is the finding. The developer publishes a specification table and nothing resembling a shared-amenity list. No clubhouse, no food and beverage, no lifestyle hub, no prayer room, no sports amenity, no conference facility is claimed by anybody. A gated environment is claimed by one agent surface; 6 ft fencing, concrete driveways, a 6-passenger lift per unit and a solar-ready roof are claimed by the developer. ⚠ A guardhouse, CCTV, EV charging, rainwater harvesting and sewerage, water and gas provision are NOT CLAIMED BY ANYONE at all. This is a plain industrial park with a specification and no amenity programme, and nothing on either list is contractually promised, because there is no filed advertisement in which a promise could sit.
Plot ratio and lot coverage — the two measures that matter on an industrial park — are NOT PUBLISHED, so no density figure appears on this page. And it could not be computed honestly even if one wanted to: the only parcel-plus-count pair available anywhere is the LATER phase’s 34 units on 5 acres, and that is a different parcel from Phase 1’s, whose unit count is itself contradicted.
⚠⚠ AND THE NAME THAT IS NOT THIS PROJECT, REFUSED BY NAME: “Jenjarom Industrial Park” WITHOUT the I&I prefix. One agent uses that bare name for a park whose own description runs to 283 ACRES, with phases 3A and 3B and a 19,000 sq ft land type at 11,495 sq ft of built-up and 300 amps. That cannot be the same development as 15.2 acres, it uses a phase numbering this developer does not use, and it carries a type that does not exist in this schedule. A source that says only “Jenjarom Industrial Park” has NOT identified this project, and nothing from it is carried here.
Two sibling projects of the same group are likewise refused by name: one at Telok Panglima Garang under a different developing entity, and one at Setia Alam under a third. Different projects, different entities, different districts. Nothing crosses from either, and the Telok Panglima Garang sibling is the specific reason this page carries no imagery at all.

No distance, address, coordinate, acreage or boundary on this page is estimated, and none is read off a developer map or site plan. The district is carried on five ranked legs whose strongest is six filed government records, and the developer’s own contradicting page is printed rather than quietly dropped. Sources: the developer’s own division page, Phase 1 page and projects page; the KPKT TEDUH register, searched against a positive control with the ampersand controlled for and the neighbouring township’s six registrations walked to a clean close; one agent blog of 26 September 2025; two agent listings; one agency page; one listings site; and all four green tiers — all read 21 October 2026.

The register position

What is on a register, and what is not — for I&I Jenjarom Industrial Park

On a licensed housing development this table is the statutory particulars block. Here it is a table of absences on the statutory side and a table of unusually complete answers on the product side, and every cell names what was checked. Read the empty cells carefully: on this product NONE is usually the correct legal answer rather than a missing document — but CANNOT BE CHECKED is a third thing again, and where it applies the table says so instead of implying a clean result. AND EVERY PRODUCT CELL CARRIES ITS PHASE.

Developer licence	KPKT registration	Advertising & sales permit	Filed statutory advertisement	Statutory sale contract	Contracting entity	Tenure	Title & lots	Units & built form	Engineering, by phase	Completion date	Register progress fields	Price & GDV	Green rating & awards	Imagery
NEVER ISSUED. Not lapsed — never issued. No company in this group holds or has held a KPKT developer licence. Searched 21 October 2026 on three name axes against a positive control that returned 16 licensees and 22 projects. ⚠ AND THE AMPERSAND WAS CONTROLLED FOR FIRST: a known ampersanded licensee came back INTACT — `L & T REALTY SDN. BHD.`, code `30331`. So the zero is a REAL ZERO, not a URL-encoding artefact. And it cannot be issued: the Housing Development Act 1966 reaches housing accommodation, and a factory is not housing accommodation.	NONE — no record of any kind. No registered scheme name, no project code, no register entry. There is no licence under which a registration could exist. ⚠ THE CONTRAST, 250 m AWAY: `SCIENTEX JENJAROM SDN. BHD.`, licence `30714/03-2029/0056(A)`, carries SIX registered phases in this same locality, walked to a clean close against `bilanganProjek: 6`.	DOES NOT EXIST. Cannot exist for this product class. So nothing about this park was lodged with the ministry before it was advertised, there is no permit number, no permit validity and NO LAPSE QUESTION TO ASSESS.	NONE — and none is required outside the Act. No filed brochure, no filed newspaper advertisement, no statutory particulars block, no filed price band, no filed completion date. Every product figure on this page is therefore labelled with the publisher that carried it AND the phase it belongs to.	NONE — no Schedule G or H. No statutory delivery period. No statutory liquidated damages. No section 7A housing development account. No statutory defect liability period. No KPKT recourse. No Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims. ⚠ The developer DOES publish a CONTRACTUAL defect-liability period of 24 months — and an agent publishes 12. A contractual term in place of a statutory one, at twice the length. ⚠ And the substitute delivery period a buyer is actually offered appears as “36 months from SPA stamping” on an agent listing now marked expired.	I&I Industrial Development Sdn Bhd — named as the developer of THIS project on the developer’s own division page and projects page. ⚠ ITS OWN REGISTRATION NUMBER IS PUBLISHED NOWHERE. The only registration number on the site belongs to I&I Group Sdn. Bhd., `202101002186` (`1402484T`) — the HOLDING company, not the counterparty. A PRIVATE company, incorporated 2021. NO stock-exchange listing at all, so no announcement, circular, quarterly or annual report exists. The listed-parent route was TRIED and is SHUT. ⚠ A named construction arm is credited by one agent, and its relationship to the group’s own construction company is NOT EXPLAINED by anybody.	FREEHOLD — SIX independent surfaces, ZERO dissent. The developer’s own division page and its Phase 1 page, for the detached AND the semi-detached types; four agent surfaces; and the later phase’s launch write-up. No lease, no term, no expiry — because there is none. The cleanest single answer on this page. So the leasehold state-consent-to-transfer problem does NOT arise here in its usual form. ⚠ But a restriction in interest can sit on a FREEHOLD industrial title too, and no source says whether one does.	INDIVIDUAL TITLE — ⚠ SINGLE-SOURCED to one agent blog, 26 September 2025. NOT the developer. LOTS `1141`, `1142` and `1143`, published on the developer’s own projects page — which makes a title search actionable. ⚠ MUKIM NOT PUBLISHED, so a title search is still required before the lot numbers can be used. Express condition, category of land use, restriction in interest, charge and chargee: ALL UNPUBLISHED. Land-use descriptor: “medium industrial urbanized area” (developer) and “light and medium industry” (agent, single-sourced). No gazetted zoning reference is cited by anybody.	PHASE 1: CONTRADICTED. The developer’s projects page says “about 18 semi-detached factory units of 23,500–28,000 sq ft”; its own Phase 1 page lists FOUR types including a DETACHED one and no unit count at all. ⚠ And NOTHING anywhere is 28,000 sq ft. That projects page also says “planning stage” and targets planning by the first half of 2023 — a STALE page the developer never updated. Likely explanation, NOT a confirmed one. THE LATER PHASE: 34 units on 5 acres, single-sourced. Storeys: Phase 1 THREE · later phase TWO. No source maps a unit COUNT to a type letter, so this page builds none.	PHASE 1 — floor loading 3 tonnes/m² on the ground slab (developer), refined by an agent to 3 / 1.5 / 1 t/m² for production, front setback and sides-and-rear. Eave 12.2 m / 40 ft; ⚠ one agent says 9 m / 30 ft — a real contradiction, printed. Power 600 A detached, 300 A semi-detached. Built-up 23,499–36,884 sq ft on land 30,448–57,063 sq ft. Clip-lock Bluescope roof, solar-ready; finished floor level 4.6 m; frontage 20.2 m / 66 ft on three surfaces; 6 ft fencing; concrete driveway with piling; stainless gutters; 6-passenger lift. ⚠ THE LATER PHASE IS A DIFFERENT BUILDING: about 1 tonne/m², eave about 6 m, 150 A three-phase, built-up about 3,476–3,879 sq ft, TWO storeys. A third of the floor loading. A tenth of the size. ALL single-sourced. NOT PUBLISHED by anybody, either phase: roller-shutter dimensions, dock levellers, loading-bay count, turning radius, sprinkler and fire class, water, sewerage and gas provision, bays per unit, plot ratio and lot coverage.	⚠ FOUR PUBLISHED ANSWERS, AND THE EARLIEST HAS PASSED. `2025 Q4` — the developer, on BOTH its pages. `early 2025` and “36 months from SPA stamping” — one agent listing, now marked expired. `2026` — one listings site. `2026 Q4` — the LATER phase, single-sourced. NONE is contractual: there is no Schedule G or H to carry a delivery date. ⚠ The developer’s own target has PASSED and NO source states a completion, a CCC or a percentage complete.	ALL STRUCTURALLY UNAVAILABLE — which is NOT the same as clean. `peratusSiap`: CANNOT BE READ. `pindaanTempohSerahKosong`: CANNOT EXIST — no statutory delivery period was ever fixed. `iklan`: not an empty array but a field with no record to sit in. `rekodLesenTerdahulu`: N/A — no licence, so no history. ⚠⚠ `status.keseluruhan`: CANNOT BE READ, THEREFORE `Lewat` CANNOT BE CHECKED. Not “not flagged”. Not “clean”. And on THIS project it bites: the developer’s own target has passed and this one field would have answered it in a word. `Baki Unit`: tested and INAPPLICABLE. No take-up claim is made by anybody either — so there is not even a “sold is not built” problem to flag.	NO PRICE ON THIS PAGE, AT ALL. No advertisement was ever filed, so NO filed statutory selling-price range exists — and where none exists the house rule is to publish no price and to say that is the rule. ⚠ AND A CLEAN PASS, FOUND BY CHECKING: the developer’s own Phase 1 page and division page carry NO price figure at all — no “from”, no asterisk, no footnote. Agent asking prices exist and are withheld. One agent page carries a conditional inducement; its EXISTENCE is recorded and its terms, items and figures are NOT. NO rent is transcribed on this page. GDV above RM150 million IS published, because a value alone is innocuous. NO cost figure is published by anybody, so there is no pair and no margin can be derived.	NO GreenRE entry on any of four tiers — and the honest answer SPLITS BY PHASE. LATER PHASE: a GENUINE negative. Launched 26 Sep 2025, target 2026 Q4 — any provisional would post well inside the readable window on all four tiers. PHASE 1: INCONCLUSIVE on Bronze, Silver and Gold. Its assets date Mar–Aug 2023 and a provisional would most likely date 2023, BELOW the oldest readable row. Only Platinum, readable to 2015, rules it out properly. So: “no entry in the reachable portion”, NOT “not certified”. AND NOBODY MAKES A GREEN CLAIM FOR THIS PROJECT AT ALL — the only sustainability sentence anywhere is that the roof is designed to support future solar. No rating claim to check. Green Building Index directory unreadable — INCONCLUSIVE, never a negative. BCA Green Mark, LEED and the construction-quality score: searched, NO result. NO AWARD claimed for this project or any project of this group, by anybody.	NONE on this page, in either language — and the reason is ATTRIBUTION, not reach. The developer’s media library is WIDE OPEN and gives a title, an address, a file type and the actual PIXEL DIMENSIONS for every asset. About 24 project-depicting assets were located and MEASURED. Size was never the problem. ⚠⚠ THAT SAME LIBRARY SERVES AT LEAST FOUR DIFFERENT PROJECTS OUT OF THE SAME FOLDERS, including a sibling industrial park with thirteen-plus assets in the SAME folder. So a title naming only a SUBJECT cannot be attributed, and 12+ perfectly sized assets were declined on that ground alone. Seven more refused by CATEGORY: a site plan, two location maps, four floor plans, a specification graphic and a rasterised brochure page — the last two UNSIGHTED, because a figure inside a graphic is still a figure. ⚠⚠ AND THREE GENERIC STOCK FACTORY PHOTOGRAPHS AT 1,380 × 920 WOULD HAVE PASSED EVERY MECHANICAL TEST AND DEPICT NO PROJECT AT ALL. Refused. A subject is never guessed. ONE asset did reach the top grade — a library title naming both project and subject, 1,080 × 607, un-downscaled, confirmed present. It is not published here because no publication clearance exists for it yet.

Scroll the table sideways. Every cell is a statement about a REGISTER, a FILING or a PUBLISHED SOURCE, and the publisher is named wherever one exists. Every product cell carries its PHASE, because the two phases differ by a factor of three on floor loading and a factor of ten on size. Where two publishers disagree, both are printed and neither is adopted. Where a field cannot be read, the table says CANNOT BE CHECKED rather than implying a clean result.

Sources: the KPKT TEDUH register of licensed developers and registered projects, searched 21 October 2026 on three name axes against a positive control, with the AMPERSAND CONTROLLED FOR first and the neighbouring township’s six registrations walked to a clean close; the developer’s own division page, Phase 1 page, projects page, sitemap and media index; one agent blog of 26 September 2025, which is the only source for the later phase; two agent listings, one now marked expired; one agency page; one listings site; and all four GreenRE tiers, read in one session. Two further surfaces that name this project could not be read from here and that is stated rather than left as a gap. Published 21 October 2026. Marketing information, not an offer.

Why there is no licence, stated as law rather than as a gap — and why the zero is trustworthy

A developer licence and an advertising and sales permit are required under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, and the Act reaches housing accommodation. A detached or semi-detached factory on industrial land is not housing accommodation. So no licence, no permit and no registered scheme CAN be issued for this park, and their absence is not a failure by anybody. AND THE ANSWER HERE IS THE STRONGEST FORM OF THE NEGATIVE: NEVER ISSUED. Not lapsed. Not expired. Never issued, to any company in this group. The ministry’s register was searched on 21 October 2026 with a positive control run FIRST, which returned 16 licensees and 22 projects. The endpoint is healthy, so every zero below is a real zero. THREE NAME AXES WERE SEARCHED. ONE, the group’s own brand: ZERO licensees, ZERO projects, on a clean untruncated single page of results. TWO, the group’s other named operating company: ZERO licensees, ZERO projects. THREE, the locality itself: exactly ONE licensee — and it is NOT this developer. It is the neighbouring township’s, and that record is what settled the district. AND HERE IS THE STEP THAT MAKES THE ZERO WORTH ANYTHING AT ALL, BECAUSE WITHOUT IT THE WHOLE FINDING WOULD REST ON NOTHING. This group’s brand is two letters joined by an ampersand. An ampersand is exactly the character that gets mangled in a query — and a mangled query returns nothing, which looks IDENTICAL to a real zero. So before trusting the zero, the register was queried with a KNOWN ampersanded licensee as the encoding control. It came back INTACT, naming L & T REALTY SDN. BHD., developer code 30331, licence 30331/01-2028/0008(A), with two registered projects. THE ENDPOINT HANDLES AN AMPERSAND CORRECTLY. Therefore the zero on this group’s name is a REAL ZERO and not a URL-encoding artefact. The register was searched properly, and saying so is part of the finding rather than a footnote to it. WHO THE BUYER WOULD ACTUALLY BE CONTRACTING WITH, AND THE GAP IN IT. The developer names a DIFFERENT developing entity for each of its three projects, and for this one it names I&I Industrial Development Sdn Bhd. That is more than most unlicensed developers manage — it is a specific company, not a brand. ⚠ BUT THE ONLY REGISTRATION NUMBER ANYWHERE ON ITS SITE BELONGS TO I&I Group Sdn. Bhd., 202101002186 (1402484T) — THE HOLDING COMPANY. I&I Industrial Development Sdn Bhd’S OWN REGISTRATION NUMBER IS PUBLISHED NOWHERE. So a buyer can look up the group but not, from any published source, the company whose name goes on the contract. A company search closes that in one step. The group’s office address is in Shah Alam, in a different district entirely — and that says nothing whatever about where this project is. Never read a locality off a company record. AND THE COMPARISON THE PAGE EXISTS TO MAKE, WHICH IS 250 METRES AWAY. SCIENTEX JENJAROM SDN. BHD. holds licence 30714/03-2029/0056(A), developer code 30714, with SIX registered phases in this same locality — 30714-1 to 30714-6 — and the walk closes cleanly against the register’s own count of six. Every one of those six has a registration code, an advertising and sales permit, a prescribed Schedule G or Schedule H contract, a filed delivery period, a construction-progress percentage, a late flag and the Tribunal behind it. EVERY ONE OF THOSE FIELDS IS STRUCTURALLY UNAVAILABLE FOR THE PARK NEXT DOOR, which is lawful and is exactly the point. AND THE LISTED-PARENT ROUTE WAS TRIED AND IT IS SHUT, which is reported as an outcome rather than skipped. I&I Group Sdn. Bhd. is a PRIVATE company, incorporated in 2021 on the evidence of its own registration number. There is no stock-exchange listing at all — so no announcement, no circular, no quarterly report, no annual report and no analyst note exists for this group. On another project in this series that route produced a lease expiry, a land category and an independent valuation from a regulated filing. Here it has no entry point whatever, and that is stated rather than left as a silence.

Every register field here is STRUCTURALLY UNAVAILABLE — and on THIS project that bites

The difference between “checked and clean” and “no record to check” is the difference between reassurance and nothing at all, and on this project it is not academic. peratusSiap, the construction-progress percentage: CANNOT BE READ. No percentage exists on any public surface. pindaanTempohSerahKosong, the delivery-period amendment field: CANNOT EXIST. There is no Schedule G and no Schedule H, so no statutory delivery period was ever fixed and no extension question can even be asked. ⚠ And note what the buyer actually gets in its place: “36 months from SPA stamping”, on an agent listing, from a third party, on a page now marked expired. A contractual period published by somebody who is not the developer. iklan, the filed-advertisement array: not an empty array but genuinely non-existent — there is no record to carry the field. A fourth state, distinct from a populated array, an empty one and an unreachable one. rekodLesenTerdahulu, the licence history: not applicable. No licence, so no renewal, amendment or new-issue history exists at all. ⚠⚠ status.keseluruhan, the overall status field: CANNOT BE READ — AND THEREFORE Lewat, THE LATE FLAG, CANNOT BE CHECKED. That is not “not flagged”. It is not “clean”. It is unavailable. AND ON THIS PROJECT IT WOULD HAVE MATTERED MORE THAN ON ALMOST ANY OTHER: the developer’s own completion target of 2025 Q4 has PASSED; one agent said early 2025; and NO source states a completion, a CCC or a percentage complete. On a licensed project one field would answer that in a single word. Here nothing can — and the neighbouring township 250 m away has that field on all six of its phases. Baki Unit, the remaining-stock field: tested here and INAPPLICABLE. There is no register maximum to raise. ONE MORE ABSENCE WORTH STATING, BECAUSE IT IS A POSITIVE: no take-up claim is made by anybody. Not by the developer, not by an agent. So unlike several projects in this series there is not even a “sold is not built” problem to flag here — nobody is claiming a percentage sold, so nobody can be misreading one as a percentage built.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction on his own company’s project materials is absolute, and this paragraph is the only place on this page where these words appear at all. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion and no commission figure is published here, in either language, in the body or in this page’s structured data. No yield, no return projection, no rental-return rate, no leaseback and no guaranteed-rental rate is published either — and on an INDUSTRIAL asset that is worth stating twice, because return figures are the ordinary currency of industrial marketing. A published rent is the DIRECT input to a forbidden return figure, so not one rent figure is transcribed on this page. Factory rentals at this locality are listed on more than one surface; nothing from any of them is carried here. ON PRICE, AND THIS ONE IS UNUSUAL, BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER ITSELF PASSES CLEANLY. On a licensed housing development this site publishes the filed statutory selling-price range out of the developer’s own legally filed advertisement, because that is a public statutory record, and labels it as one — always with the line that it is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. HERE NO ADVERTISEMENT WAS EVER FILED, BECAUSE NONE IS REQUIRED OUTSIDE THE ACT. SO THERE IS NO FILED RANGE, AND THERE IS NOTHING OF THAT KIND TO PUBLISH. Where no filed statutory range exists the house rule is to publish no price at all and to say that is the rule. AND A CLEAN PASS WORTH RECORDING PRECISELY BECAUSE IT WAS LOOKED FOR RATHER THAN ASSUMED: the developer’s own Phase 1 page and its division page carry NO PRICE FIGURE AT ALL — no “from”, no asterisk, no footnote, no site-wide disclaimer. That is the fourth possible outcome on the price question, and it is the one nobody expects: the developer simply does not publish a figure. It was checked specifically, and on another industrial project written up the same day the developer’s own site DID carry an asterisked figure, so the check is not a formality. THE BARRED MATERIAL IS ALL ON AGENT SURFACES, AND NONE OF IT IS REPRODUCED. Several agent listings print per-unit asking prices. Agent asking prices with no filed floor to measure them against. Withheld. AND ONE AGENT PAGE CARRIES A CONDITIONAL INDUCEMENT ATTACHED TO THE PURCHASE. Its EXISTENCE is recorded here, because a buyer should know that such a thing is in circulation and should ask about it directly. Its TERMS are not described, no item in it is named, and no figure is attached to it — and this page will not enumerate the components of a package while claiming to withhold it, which is the usual way that rule gets broken. Ask Louis what is actually on offer, in writing, and get it into the contract rather than into an advertisement. ON THE GROSS DEVELOPMENT VALUE, AND WHY ITS PUBLICATION IS DELIBERATE WHILE SOMETHING ELSE IS NOT. The developer’s own projects page publishes an estimated gross development value ABOVE RM150 MILLION, and that figure appears on this page because a development VALUE on its own is innocuous — it is a measure of the scheme’s size, not of anybody’s return. NO DEVELOPMENT COST FIGURE IS PUBLISHED BY ANYBODY for this project, so there is no PAIR here — and that matters, because a value minus a cost is a development MARGIN, and a margin is a return figure. Had a cost figure existed it would have been withheld and the value published alone, and the pair would never have appeared together. Before recording any pair of figures, ask what the pair computes. ON THE ETHNIC-ALLOCATION QUESTION, AND THE SHAPE OF THE ANSWER MATTERS: NONE OF THE THREE POSSIBLE SHAPES WAS FOUND. There is no filed field, because there is no filing in which a field could exist — so unlike several licensed projects on this site, there is no Bumiputera field here carrying a value that has been withheld. There is no unit quota on any surface read. And there is no lot-title classification either. Three distinct shapes were tested and all three came back empty, and saying that precisely is more useful than silence. WHAT IS PUBLISHED HERE, AND DELIBERATELY: the freehold tenure and the title descriptor; the lot numbers; the full four-type Phase 1 schedule with per-floor areas, floor loading, eave height and power per type; the later phase’s separate schedule, labelled as single-sourced on every row; the gross development value; the five published distances, labelled by phase; and every contradiction, printed rather than averaged. Everything else — 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. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. Ask Louis for both, in writing, and appoint your own solicitor before you sign anything.

Foreign buyers — an OPEN QUESTION on an industrial title, not an answer

This is the section where it would be easy to publish a confident number, and the honest position is that the number everybody quotes is a RESIDENTIAL instrument and nobody has established that it binds an industrial lot at all. So three things are stated together here, and none of them is stated without the others. ONE: the district is Daerah Kuala Langat, on five independent legs whose strongest is six filed government registrations — and Daerah Kuala Langat sits in Selangor ZONE 2, NOT Zone 1. The developer’s own projects page says Klang, which WOULD be Zone 1. That is the contradiction printed above, and this is one of the places it would bite. TWO: Zone 2’s verified foreign-acquisition floor is RM2,000,000 — for RESIDENTIAL property. For completeness: Zone 1, which is Petaling, Gombak, Hulu Langat, Sepang and Klang, is also RM2,000,000; Zone 3, Hulu Selangor, is RM1,000,000; Sabak Bernam is NOT VERIFIED and this page states no figure for it; and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur is RM1,000,000. So the two readings of the district happen to carry the same figure, which is lucky rather than reassuring: the FIGURE does not move, but a buyer told the wrong zone will not find this district in the circular they are sent to. AND THE RM1,500,000 WINDOW FROM THE 2020 STATE CIRCULAR HAS EXPIRED and is not current. It is named here precisely so that nobody quotes it. THREE, AND IT IS THE PART THAT MATTERS MOST: EVERY SOURCE BEHIND THAT TABLE IS A RESIDENTIAL ACQUISITION INSTRUMENT. A foreigner-eligibility tool, commentary on the state land office’s 2020 circular, the 2014 state circular, and the federal property-acquisition guidelines with section 433B of the National Land Code. Every one of them is about residential property. THEIR APPLICATION TO AN INDUSTRIAL TITLE IS NOT ESTABLISHED, AND THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL TITLE. Foreign acquisition of industrial land runs on a different consent track. RM2,000,000 IS NOT PUBLISHED HERE AS “THE RULE” FOR THIS PARK, because nobody has shown that it is. AND HERE THE TENURE ACTUALLY HELPS, WHICH IS WORTH SAYING OUT LOUD BECAUSE IT SO RARELY DOES. The land is FREEHOLD on six independent surfaces with no dissent. So the leasehold problem — where a transfer normally needs STATE CONSENT and that consent commonly carries a premium on industrial land — does NOT arise here in its usual form. That is a genuine advantage and this page states it. ⚠ BUT A RESTRICTION IN INTEREST REQUIRING STATE CONSENT CAN SIT ON A FREEHOLD INDUSTRIAL TITLE TOO, AND NO SOURCE SAYS WHETHER ONE DOES HERE. Nobody publishes the express condition, the category of land use on the title, or any restriction. The freehold tenure removes one class of consent risk; the title’s own conditions remain unpublished. What closes it: a land-title search on Lots 1141, 1142 and 1143, plus the current PTG Selangor guideline on foreign acquisition of industrial land. A foreign buyer should take state-level advice in writing before committing to anything here.

The green answer, which SPLITS by phase — and the one thing nobody claims

THIS IS THE HONEST SPLIT, AND IT IS NOT THE SAME ANSWER FOR BOTH PHASES. Hedging the two together as one block would be easier and less true. All four green tiers were read in one session. Bronze returned about 332 rows back to 4 April 2024, Silver about 141 back to 26 December 2023, Gold about 130 back to 11 March 2024 — each truncated at the oldest row — and Platinum about 95 rows back to 6 April 2015, NOT truncated. THERE IS NO ENTRY FOR THIS PROJECT ON ANY TIER, under the brand, under the locality or under the bare initials. FOR THE LATER PHASE THE ZERO IS A GENUINE NEGATIVE. It launched on 26 September 2025 with a 2026 Q4 target, so any design-stage provisional certification would post WELL INSIDE the readable window on all four tiers. There is no registration. FOR PHASE 1 THE ZERO IS INCONCLUSIVE ON THREE OF THE FOUR TIERS. Its own imagery and its brochures date to March to August 2023 and its target was 2025 Q4, so a provisional would most likely date 2023 — BELOW the oldest readable row on Bronze, Silver and Gold. Only Platinum, readable in full to 2015, rules Phase 1 out properly. So for Phase 1 this page says “no entry in the reachable portion” and NOT “not certified”, because the two are different statements and only one of them is supported. AND THE REASON IT PROBABLY DOES NOT MATTER, WHICH IS ALSO THE CLEANEST THING ON THIS PART OF THE PAGE: NOBODY MAKES A GREEN CLAIM FOR THIS PROJECT AT ALL. Not the developer, not one agent. The only sustainability sentence anywhere is that the roof is designed to support future solar. There is no rating claim to check, so there is no gap between a claim and a register — which is a cleaner position than a project that markets itself as green against an empty register. ONE METHOD NOTE FOR ANYBODY CHECKING THIS THEMSELVES, BECAUSE IT IS THE PART PEOPLE GET WRONG: on the green register the TOOL CODE is the discriminator, not the project name. The township tool code is the one an industrial PARK carries — every industrial park in this district on the register carries it — while the BUILDINGS inside a park carry one of the industrial building codes instead, of which this read turned up a second variant new to this site’s catalogue. And a RESIDENTIAL tool code means the row is not an industrial project at all, whatever its name looks like. Read the code, not the name. THE OTHER SCHEMES, CHECKED BEFORE THE ZERO WAS CALLED. The Green Building Index directory could not be read — it has returned errors throughout this series — so that one is INCONCLUSIVE and is never reported as a negative. No claim is made on it either way. BCA Green Mark, LEED and the construction-quality assessment score were each searched explicitly, for this project and for the group, and NO result exists for any of them. And there is no developer certificate library to check: the site’s three-child sitemap holds no awards, recognitions, sustainability or certification page. AWARDS: NONE IS CLAIMED FOR THIS PROJECT, OR FOR ANY PROJECT OF THIS GROUP, BY ANYBODY. So there is no award-borrowing trap here at all — which is unusual in this series, and is stated as a finding rather than left as a silence. Nothing has been borrowed from this group’s other two projects, and nothing could have been. AND ONE SUPERLATIVE WORTH LABELLING RATHER THAN REPEATING: “medium industrial urbanized area” is the developer’s own phrase and it is a DESCRIPTOR DRESSED AS A PLANNING CLASSIFICATION. No gazetted zoning reference is cited by anybody. The agent’s “light and medium industry” permitted use is single-sourced, and the title’s actual express condition is unpublished. And “flood free” is an agent claim whose only support is a RELATIVE level — a finished floor level of 4.6 m against 3.3 m on the adjacent road. That is a comparison, not a flood study, and on a coastal-plain district it is printed as the agent’s claim and never as a fact.

Why this page carries no imagery at all — and here the reason is ATTRIBUTION, not reach

NO IMAGE APPEARS ON THIS PAGE, AND THE REASON IS DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER IMAGE-FREE PAGE ON THIS SITE, WHICH IS WHY IT IS WORTH A FULL EXPLANATION RATHER THAN A LINE. On most projects the problem is that nothing is reachable, or that nothing is captioned, or that everything is too small. Here the developer’s own media library is WIDE OPEN: it returns a title, a servable address, a file type and the actual pixel dimensions for every asset it holds. Roughly twenty-four distinct project-depicting assets were located and MEASURED. SO REACHABILITY WAS NEVER THE CONSTRAINT. ATTRIBUTION WAS. ⚠⚠ THAT SAME OPEN LIBRARY SERVES AT LEAST FOUR DIFFERENT PROJECTS OUT OF THE SAME DATE FOLDERS. This park; a sibling industrial park at Telok Panglima Garang under a different developing entity, with thirteen or more of its own assets sitting in the SAME folder as this project’s; a fourth, otherwise undocumented site identified only by a lot number; and a later batch containing a RESIDENTIAL product type. CONSEQUENCE, AND IT GOVERNS EVERYTHING BELOW: a file whose title names only a SUBJECT — “Front”, “Rear”, “Left”, “Front Elevation”, “Detached Type A” — CANNOT be attributed to this project, because any of four projects could own it. Only two things qualify an asset on this host: a title that names the PROJECT, or appearance in the image list of this project’s OWN page. Everything else is declined, however good it looks. AND THAT IS HOW TWELVE OR MORE PERFECTLY SIZED ASSETS CAME TO BE DECLINED. Seven that are generically titled but DO appear on this project’s own page would have been usable as a set under the page’s own group headings — and every one of them is over 2,500 pixels wide. Others are 1,920 by 1,080, or 1,500 by 900, or 2,560 by 1,810. Size was never the problem. SEVEN MORE WERE REFUSED BY CATEGORY RATHER THAN BY ATTRIBUTION, and the categories matter: a SITE PLAN, two LOCATION MAPS, four FLOOR PLANS, a “details” specification graphic and a rasterised brochure page. Plans and maps are refused by name on this site. The site plan would otherwise have been one of the best-identified files in the whole library, which is exactly why the refusal has to be categorical rather than case-by-case. And the specification graphic and the brochure page were refused UNSIGHTED and deliberately not opened, because a marketing specification sheet routinely carries a price or package table, and a figure inside a graphic is still a figure. Those same images are also refused as a DATA source: no distance, acreage, floor loading or density on this page has been read off any of them. ⚠⚠ AND THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT REFUSAL ON THIS WHOLE PAGE, BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE PASSED EVERY MECHANICAL TEST. The library holds THREE generically titled stock photographs of a factory, 1,380 by 920 pixels each. They clear every size threshold. They have a plausible, populated title. They are reachable, they are the right file type, and they would have uploaded cleanly. AND THEY DEPICT NO PROJECT AT ALL. They are the most seductive trap in the library precisely because nothing mechanical catches them — only the rule that a subject is never guessed. They are refused, and the fact that they would have passed is the reason this section exists. ONE ASSET DID REACH THE TOP GRADE. A single file carries a library title that names BOTH the project AND the subject in one string, at 1,080 by 607 pixels, with no downscaling marker on its filename — so it is the original rather than a reduced copy — and it is confirmed present against a matched control in a reachable folder. It is the first top-grade industrial asset this site has found. It is not published here, because this page ships what has been cleared for publication and nothing else, and no publication clearance exists for it yet. If it is cleared, it goes on this page with a caption that goes no further than its own title does, and nothing else about the page has to change. THE OTHER HOSTS, BRIEFLY. One agent blog carries ten captioned images and yields ZERO usable candidates: four of its captions are descriptive and all four describe PLANS or MAPS, and the other six are sequence numbers rather than descriptions. It is also a third-party republisher of developer creatives with no stated provenance. Two further surfaces carry one or two assets each behind hash filenames and titles that merely echo the hash — a populated title is not a descriptive one. And two surfaces that name this project cannot be read from here at all, which is recorded so nobody assumes they were missed. AND ONE METHOD NOTE, RECORDED BECAUSE IT IS A TEMPTATION RATHER THAN A PROBLEM: the developer’s library index leaks a STAGING hostname in one of its internal fields on several records, while the servable address stays clean. No staging address was probed and none is published. An internal identifier is not a servable address, and probing somebody’s staging environment is not research. Every page on this site that has no cleared imagery ships with none, and says so in both languages. The house position is settled: an uncaptioned or wrongly captioned image is worse than no image. Everything this page is for — the law, the licence answer, the two phases kept apart, the contradictions printed rather than resolved, and the gaps named with the document that would close each one — is text, and none of it needs a picture.

The developer side

A group that names its developing entity properly, publishes no number for it, and holds no licence anywhere

I&I Industrial Development Sdn Bhd is named as the developer of THIS project specifically, on the developer’s own division page and again on its projects page. That is better than most unlicensed developers on this site manage: the group names a DIFFERENT developing entity for each of its three parks — I&I Industrial Development Sdn Bhd at Jenjarom, I&I Property Development Sdn Bhd at Setia Alam and I&I Land Sdn. Bhd. at Telok Panglima Garang — so a buyer is at least told which company the contract will be with. ⚠ AND THEN THE NUMBER IS MISSING. I&I Industrial Development Sdn Bhd’S OWN COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBER IS PUBLISHED NOWHERE. The only registration number anywhere on the site is I&I Group Sdn. Bhd.’s, 202101002186 (1402484T), in the footer copyright of every page — and that is the HOLDING company, not the counterparty. So the one company a buyer can look up is not the company a buyer signs with. A company search on the named developing entity closes that in one step, and it is worth doing before anything else.

NO COMPANY IN THIS GROUP HOLDS A KPKT DEVELOPER LICENCE, AND NONE EVER HAS. Not lapsed — never issued. The register of licensed developers was searched on 21 October 2026 on three name axes — the brand, the developing entity and a second operating company, United Capital Development Sdn Bhd — and every one returned zero licensees and zero projects, untruncated, on a single page of results. A positive control was run first and returned 16 licensees and 22 projects, so the endpoint was healthy when the zeros came back. ⚠ AND THE ONE WAY A ZERO LIKE THIS CAN BE FAKE WAS CONTROLLED FOR BEFORE IT WAS TRUSTED. The brand name contains an ampersand, and an ampersand is exactly the character that breaks a query silently. So a known ampersanded licensee was queried on the same endpoint and came back INTACT — L & T REALTY SDN. BHD., developer code 30331, licence 30331/01-2028/0008(A), two registered projects. The register handles an ampersand correctly. The zero on this group is therefore a REAL ZERO and not an encoding artefact, and that distinction is the difference between a finding and a guess.

And the absence is not a failure by anybody, which is the part that usually gets written wrong. The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 licenses the development of housing accommodation. A three-storey detached or semi-detached FACTORY is not housing accommodation. There is no licence class for it, so there is no licence to hold, no scheme to register, no advertising and sales permit to issue and no statutory advertisement to file. What the buyer loses is real and specific: no Schedule G or H prescribed contract, no statutory delivery period, no statutory liquidated damages for late delivery, no section 7A housing development account holding the progress payments, no filed completion date, no register entry to check, and no Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims behind you. That is the finding on this page, not a gap in the research.

THERE IS NOT EVEN A LICENSED SIBLING UNDER THE SAME BRAND TO TRIANGULATE FROM, and that is unusual. On other projects in this series an unlicensed scheme sat beside a licensed one from the same developer, and the licensed one’s register record showed what the machinery looks like when it works. Here the group’s other two parks are both industrial, both unlicensed, and both in the same position. The three siblings are decoys rather than corroboration and each is refused by name: I&I Setia Alam Industrial Park (different entity, different district, built-up 9,595 sq ft, target 2027 Q1) and I&I TPG Industrial Park (different entity, land 22,281–25,823 sq ft, built-up 15,931 sq ft, target 2027 Q2). ⚠ The TPG sibling is the most dangerous object on this job, because it is in the SAME DISTRICT, the SAME product class and — critically — its images sit in the SAME UPLOAD DIRECTORY as this project’s. Not one figure and not one image has been taken from it.

THE LISTED-PARENT ROUTE WAS TRIED AND IT IS SHUT, which is an outcome rather than a skipped step. I&I Group Sdn. Bhd. is a PRIVATE company, incorporated 2021 on the evidence of its own registration number. There is no stock-exchange listing anywhere in the group, so no announcement, no circular, no quarterly report, no annual report and no analyst note exists. On another project written up in this series that same route produced a lease expiry date, a category of land use and an independent valuation, all out of a regulated filing. Here it has no entry point whatever, and that is stated rather than left as a silence.

THE LICENSED NEIGHBOUR, 250 METRES AWAY, IS THE COMPARISON THIS PAGE EXISTS TO MAKE. SCIENTEX JENJAROM SDN. BHD., developer code 30714, licence 30714/03-2029/0056(A), holds SIX registered phases in this very locality. Those six carry everything this park cannot: a registration code each, a Schedule G prescribed contract, an advertising and sales permit with a validity window, a construction-progress percentage, certificate-of-completion dates — two of them dated 22 May 2026 and 25 June 2026 — a late-delivery flag a buyer can read, and the Tribunal. ⚠ IT IS A DIFFERENT COMPANY AND A RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT: two-storey terraced houses. It is refused as a subject absolutely. But a buyer who reads that the Scientex township at Jenjarom is registered with the ministry, and assumes the industrial park beside it must be too, would be badly wrong — and the register walk closed cleanly, so the six is six and not a sample.

WHAT THE DEVELOPER’S OWN SURFACE DOES WELL, said plainly, because it is better than the norm for this product class. Its Phase 1 page publishes a FULL FOUR-TYPE SCHEDULE with per-floor areas, the floor loading, the eave height, the power per type, the roofing system, the finished floor level, the main-road frontage, the fencing, the driveway, the lift and a defect-liability period. It states the tenure as freehold twice, on two separate pages, for two separate product types. It publishes THE LOT NUMBERS. Most unlicensed industrial pages in this series had to be written around the absence of all of that. This one did not, and the developer should get the credit for it.

AND THE SAME SITE CONTRADICTS ITSELF ON THE DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE ONE THING IT GETS SERIOUSLY WRONG. Its division page says “Jenjarom town, KUALA LANGAT”. Its projects page says “Jenjarom, KLANG”. One company, two pages, two different districts. Kuala Langat is right, on five independent legs set out in the location section, and this page is filed under Kuala Langat. But the error is live on the developer’s own site and it is printed here rather than tidied away, because a buyer reading that site cannot tell which council’s records to search, which assessment rates apply, or which row of the foreign-buyer zone table to look up. ⚠ Those are different councils with different plan-reference series, different assessment rates, and different zone rows. A Majlis Perbandaran Kuala Langat plan-approval reference, or a title search on the published lots, closes it in one line.

THE CORPORATE ADDRESS IS A SHAH ALAM ADDRESS AND IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHERE THE PROJECT IS. The group’s office is at No. 48-1, Setia Avenue, Jalan Setia Prima S U13/S, Setia Alam Seksyen U13, 40170 Shah Alam, Selangor — which is Daerah Petaling, a different district from the project’s. A company’s registered or business address is evidence about the company and no evidence at all about the land. It is recorded here precisely so that nobody reads a district off it.

TWO PEOPLE-SHAPED GAPS, AND BOTH ARE WORTH NAMING. NOT ONE NAMED HUMAN IS QUOTED ANYWHERE, BY ANY SOURCE, ABOUT THIS PROJECT — no director, no sales head, no spokesperson. The developer’s own published prose amounts to two location descriptors and one call to action. ⚠ And one agent credits a construction arm by name, Total Modern Builders, with having built “many” factories. “Many” is unquantified, no project list or reference is given, and the relationship between that contractor and the group’s own I&I Construction & Engineering Sdn. Bhd. is NOT EXPLAINED BY ANYBODY. No corporate relationship is asserted on this page that a reachable source does not state.

ONE METHOD NOTE, BECAUSE IT CHANGES WHAT A READER SHOULD EXPECT FROM THIS PAGE. Three brochure PDFs sit in the developer’s own media library and ALL THREE ARE IMAGE-ONLY SCANS with no machine-readable text layer. They almost certainly carry the unit count, the specification sheet and the title particulars this page has to leave open. They could not be read from here, and a PDF in a library is a lead rather than a source until its text layer is confirmed. Ask Louis for the catalogue and the specification sheet as documents, not as a link.

Frequently asked

I&I Jenjarom Industrial Park — the questions an industrial buyer should be asking

Is I&I Jenjarom Industrial Park registered with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government?

No, and it cannot be. The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 reaches “housing accommodation”, and a three-storey factory is not housing accommodation. So there is no registered scheme, no project code, no advertising and sales permit and no filed statutory advertisement — and none of those absences is a failure by anybody. The register was searched on 21 October 2026 with a positive control run first, so the zero is a real zero.

Does the developer hold a KPKT developer licence?

No company in this group holds one, and none ever has. Never issued — not lapsed. Three name axes were searched: the brand, I&I Industrial Development Sdn Bhd, and a second operating company. All three returned zero licensees and zero projects on a single, untruncated page of results. ⚠ And the ampersand in the brand name was controlled for before the zero was trusted: a known ampersanded licensee came back intact from the same endpoint — L & T REALTY SDN. BHD., code 30331. The register handles the character correctly, so the zero is real and not an encoding artefact. There is also no licensed sibling under this brand to triangulate from: the group’s other two parks are industrial and in the same position.

What is the tenure, and is that actually settled?

FREEHOLD, and this is the best-settled tenure reading on any unlicensed project in this series: SIX independent surfaces say freehold and NOT ONE says otherwise. The developer’s own division page and its Phase 1 page both say it, and for the detached AND the semi-detached types; an agency page, two agent listings and the later-phase blog agree. Zero dissent is worth stating plainly, because on the companion industrial project written up the same day five surfaces contradicted each other and the page had to print the tenure unadjudicated. A land-title search on the published lots is still the instrument that makes it legally certain, and it would come back with the express condition and the category of land use at the same time.

Is it individual title or strata, and does that matter here?

INDIVIDUAL TITLE, and the figure is SINGLE-SOURCED — which is flagged every time it appears on this page. It comes from one agent blog, not from the developer, and the developer’s own pages say nothing about the form of title at all. It matters because an individual title is a materially different asset from a strata parcel: the owner holds the land, there is no management corporation, no share units and no strata maintenance regime, and financing and resale are generally simpler. So it is one of the two or three things most worth confirming before signing, and the title search or the sale and purchase agreement confirms it.

What is the floor loading?

3 tonnes per square metre on the Phase 1 ground slab, on the developer’s own specification — and an agent REFINES it by zone to 3 t/m² in the production area, 1.5 t/m² in the front setback and 1 t/m² at the sides and rear. That is not a contradiction; it is added resolution, and it is the most granular floor-loading data in this series. ⚠ AND IT IS PHASE 1’S FIGURE ONLY. The later link-factory phase is published at 10 kN/m², which its own source glosses as about 1 tonne/m² — A THIRD OF PHASE 1. If you are quoted a floor loading, establish which phase the quote describes before you do anything with it.

What are the unit sizes, and why does this page keep saying “which phase”?

Because the two phases differ by roughly a factor of seven on built-up and the name does not distinguish them. PHASE 1: land 30,448 to 57,063 sq ft, built-up 23,499 to 36,884 sq ft, three storeys. Four types, with per-floor areas published — Type A detached at 36,884 sq ft built-up on 57,063 sq ft of land with 600 A; Types B1, B2 and B3 semi-detached at 23,499 sq ft built-up on 30,448 or 34,325 sq ft with 300 A. THE LATER PHASE, launched 26 September 2025: single- and dual-frontage LINK factories, built-up about 3,476 and 3,879 sq ft on land of about 2,705 and 3,107 sq ft, two storeys with a mezzanine, 34 units on about 5 acres, 150 A. Same project name. A third of the floor loading, half the eave height, half the power and about a seventh of the built-up. Every specification row on this page carries its phase for that reason, and nothing from one phase is allowed to stand for the other.

How many units are there in Phase 1?

NOBODY PUBLISHES IT, and the one figure that exists does not fit. The Phase 1 page itself gives the full four-type schedule and NO unit count at all. ⚠ The developer’s other page says “about 18 semi-detached factory units of 23,500 to 28,000 sq ft” — but the Phase 1 schedule contains FOUR types including a DETACHED one, and that 28,000 sq ft top end appears on no other surface anywhere. That same page also calls the project “planning stage” and targets planning by the first half of 2023, so it is a stale vintage rather than a correction. Unresolved, and printed as unresolved. The developer’s own catalogue would close it — it is in the media library and it has no readable text layer. And note what this page therefore does NOT do: it computes no density, no plot ratio and no lot coverage. The only parcel-and-count pair available belongs to the LATER phase, and dividing that into Phase 1’s acreage would be arithmetic on two different parcels.

Which district is it in — Kuala Langat or Klang?

KUALA LANGAT, and the developer’s own website says both. Its division page says Kuala Langat; its projects page says Klang. One company, two pages, two districts, and that contradiction is printed here rather than tidied away. Kuala Langat rests on five legs, ranked: SIX filed ministry registrations for the adjacent licensed township all record the district as Kuala Langat, and the later-phase source puts this parcel 250 m from that township; the developer’s own division page; an agent listing giving the address as off Jalan Sungai Rambai, Telok Panglima Garang, which seven earlier filed registrations settled as Kuala Langat; an agency filing it under Banting, the district town of Kuala Langat; and the later-phase source stating the district in terms. NO PLAN PREFIX IS CLAIMED, because no plan-approval reference exists in any reachable source — and even the six neighbouring registrations print the plan field as having no information. A Majlis Perbandaran Kuala Langat plan reference, or the mukim off a title search, would close it absolutely.

Can a foreigner buy a unit here?

That is an OPEN QUESTION on this title, not a number, and anyone who gives you a clean figure is going further than the evidence does. Daerah Kuala Langat is SELANGOR ZONE 2, and Zone 2’s verified foreign-acquisition floor is RM2,000,000 — for RESIDENTIAL property. Every source behind that figure is a residential acquisition instrument, and their application to an INDUSTRIAL title is NOT ESTABLISHED. This is an industrial title. Foreign acquisition of industrial land runs on a different consent track, and RM2,000,000 is not published on this page as the rule for this park. ⚠ Note also that the district decides the ZONE ROW, and the developer’s own site says Klang, which is Zone 1. The two rows happen to carry the same residential figure, so the figure does not move — but anyone told “Zone 1” and then checking the circular will not find Kuala Langat in it. The freehold tenure does help here: the state-consent-to-transfer problem that hangs over leasehold industrial land does not arise in its usual form. But a restriction in interest requiring state consent can sit on a freehold industrial title too, and no source says whether one does. An earlier RM1,500,000 window has EXPIRED and must not be quoted. Take written state-level advice from the Selangor land office before committing.

When was it supposed to be finished, and is it finished?

FOUR published answers, and the developer’s own one has already passed with nothing public to say what happened. 2025 Q4 on both of the developer’s pages; “early 2025” on one agent listing, now marked expired, which also offers “36 months from stamping of the sale and purchase agreement”; 2026 on a listings site; and 2026 Q4 for the later phase, which is a different building. ⚠ NO SOURCE STATES A COMPLETION, A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION AND COMPLIANCE, OR A PERCENTAGE COMPLETE. On a licensed project the register’s own progress and late-delivery fields would answer this in one word. Here they CANNOT BE CHECKED — which is not the same as not flagged, and this is the single clearest place on the page where the absence of a filing costs the buyer something concrete. A site visit or the developer’s own sales pack is the only route.

What defect-liability period do I get?

Whatever the sale and purchase agreement says, because there is no statutory one — and the two published figures differ by a factor of two. The developer’s own Phase 1 page states 24 MONTHS in its semi-detached section. A listings site states 12. That is a CONTRACTUAL term in place of a statutory defect liability period, published at two different lengths, and it is one of the most consequential numbers on the page: on an unlicensed product the contract is the only remedy there is. Get the figure out of the executed agreement, in writing, and do not accept a brochure figure for it.

Is it a green or certified project?

NOBODY MAKES A GREEN CLAIM FOR THIS PROJECT AT ALL — not the developer, not one agent — and that is a cleaner position than a marketing claim with nothing behind it. The only sustainability sentence anywhere is that the roof is designed to support future solar. All four tiers of the GreenRE register were read in one session and there is no entry for this project on any of them. The reading SPLITS BY PHASE and is reported that way: for the later phase the zero is a genuine negative, because it launched in September 2025 and any design-stage provisional would sit well inside the readable window. For PHASE 1 the zero is INCONCLUSIVE on three of the four tiers, because its own window falls below the oldest readable row there; only the tier readable back to 2015 rules it out properly. So for Phase 1 this page says “no entry in the reachable portion” and NOT “not certified”. The Green Building Index directory could not be read and is reported as inconclusive, never as a negative. BCA Green Mark, LEED and the construction-quality assessment score were all searched for this project and for the group, with no result for any. NO AWARD IS CLAIMED for this project or for any project in this group, by anybody.

There is an industrial park at Jenjarom on the green register — is that this one?

No, and this is the single easiest way to end up with a rating that belongs to somebody else. Wisdom Park @ Jenjarom is a DIFFERENT park by a DIFFERENT developer, and it does appear on the green register with industrial tool codes. Its ownership was independently confirmed through a listed company’s own reported purchase of a factory there, which names the vendor. Two further industrial parks in or near this district also sit on that register under other developers, and one of them publishes a floor loading and an eave height almost identical to this project’s — which is exactly why borrowed specifications reconcile silently and have to be refused by name. The discriminator is the tool code and the licensee, never the project name or the locality.

I found a Jenjarom Industrial Park with phases 3A and 3B over 283 acres. Same place?

No. That is a DIFFERENT development and refusing it by name is one of the more important things on this page. It is described as 283 acres with phases numbered 3A and 3B and a unit type that does not exist in this project’s schedule. This project is about 15.2 acres with a four-type Phase 1 schedule and a link-factory later phase. They cannot be the same development, and the bare name “Jenjarom Industrial Park”, without the I&I prefix, does not identify this project. Three further sibling parks under this same brand, a fourth undocumented site identified only by a lot number, and a residential township with this locality in its company name were all encountered and all refused by name. Nothing from any of them appears on this page.

Why is there no price on this page?

Because no advertisement was ever filed, so there is no filed statutory selling-price range — and where none exists this site publishes no price at all and says that is the rule. And here something unusual is worth recording: THE DEVELOPER’S OWN PAGES CARRY NO PRICE FIGURE AT ALL — no “from” figure, no asterisk, no footnote. That was checked specifically rather than assumed, and it is a genuine clean pass of a kind this series rarely sees. Agent surfaces do carry figures and they are withheld, with the reasons set out in full in the disclosure above this section. No rent is transcribed either, because on an industrial asset a published rent is the direct input to a return figure. The gross development value the developer publishes is recorded; no cost figure is published by anybody, so no pair appears from which a margin could be computed. The real number comes from the price list and the sale and purchase agreement. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer — ask Louis.

Why does this page have no photographs?

Because of ATTRIBUTION, not reach — and that is a different reason from the one this site usually gives. The developer’s media index is wide open and returns a title, a file URL and the pixel dimensions for every asset, so the top grade was fully reachable here and ONE asset did reach it. ⚠ THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE SAME LIBRARY SERVES FOUR DIFFERENT PROJECTS OUT OF THE SAME DIRECTORIES. Twelve or more perfectly sized assets were declined because their titles name a frame and no project — Front, Left, Rear, Front Elevation — and in a four-project library that establishes nothing. One batch even contains a residential product type, which marks the whole batch as probably another development. ⚠ And the most instructive refusal: three stock photographs titled simply Factory, at 1,380 by 920 pixels, would have passed every mechanical test on the ladder and depict no project at all. A site plan was refused by name, both as an image and as a source of figures. Launch creatives whose captions are sequence numbers were refused, because a caption that counts is not a caption that describes. Nothing was borrowed from the three sibling parks and no filename was guessed. An uncaptioned or wrongly captioned image is worse than no image, and this page publishes no verifiable image of this project because none could be established to that standard.

What is the one document that would answer most of this?

A land-title search on Lots 1141, 1142 and 1143 — and the unusual thing here is that the lot numbers to order it with are already published. In one instrument it would settle the mukim, the category of land use and the express condition, any restriction in interest, the charge and chargee, and it would confirm the individual title that is currently single-sourced to an agent. Second, and cheap: the Majlis Perbandaran Kuala Langat planning record, which would name the approving authority, give the building-plan reference and close the Kuala Langat versus Klang contradiction absolutely. Third: the developer’s own catalogue and specification sheet, which Louis can ask for, and which should carry the Phase 1 unit count, the shutter dimensions, the bay count and the fire class that nobody publishes. Fourth: the sale and purchase agreement itself, for the delivery period, the late-delivery damages rate and the defect-liability period that only it can settle.

Four documents, and one appointment, before anything else

A land-title search on Lots 1141, 1142 and 1143 — the lot numbers are already published, so this one is unusually easy to order, and it settles the mukim, the category of land use, the express condition, any restriction in interest, the chargee and the individual title that is currently single-sourced. The sale and purchase agreement, in full, because on a product outside the Housing Development Act its delivery period, its late-delivery damages rate and its defect-liability period are the ONLY ones you get — and the defect-liability period is published at 24 months by the developer and 12 by an agent. The developer’s own catalogue and specification sheet, for the Phase 1 unit count, the shutter dimensions, the loading-bay count and the fire class, none of which any publisher states — and insist on readable documents, because the brochures in the developer’s own library are image-only scans. The Majlis Perbandaran Kuala Langat planning record, which closes the district contradiction on the developer’s own site in one line. And your own solicitor, appointed before you sign anything, because there is no prescribed contract and no Tribunal behind you.

WhatsApp Louis about I&I Jenjarom Industrial Park Ask for a title search on the lots Call +60 10-906 6685

Louis Koh, Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency. This page publishes no price, no rent and no return figure, and the reasons are set out in full in the disclosure above. Marketing information, not an offer.

Louis Koh

Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency

Over a decade in Malaysian property, across Johor Bahru and the Klang Valley. Louis writes these pages from the filed statutory particulars first and the marketing second, and where two sources disagree the page prints both. On a project outside the Housing Development Act that approach matters more, not less: there is no filing to fall back on, so every figure has to carry the name of whoever published it, every figure has to carry its PHASE, and the gaps have to be named with the document that would close each one. Ask him for the title search on the published lots, the sale and purchase agreement and the specification sheet before you ask him about anything else.

WhatsApp Louis now

Published 21 October 2026 · last verified 21 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register of licensed developers and registered projects, searched on three name axes with a positive control and an ampersand control, the adjacent licensed township’s six registrations walked registration by registration, all four GreenRE tiers, the developer’s own division page, Phase 1 page, projects page, sitemap and media index, one agent blog, one agency page, two agent listings and one listings site. Marketing information, not an offer.

I&I Jenjarom Industrial ParkLots 1141–1143, about 15.2 acres · FREEHOLD, six surfaces, no dissent · Phase 1 floor loading 3 t/m², eave 12.2 m, 600 / 300 A · OUTSIDE the Housing Development Act · no licence ever issued · no price published

WhatsApp Louis

Ask a specific question

If you would rather not use WhatsApp, use this. I answer them myself. Only your name and one contact method are required.

Developer: I and I Industrial Development (1 development on this site)

Where it is: Telok Panglima Garang, Selangor

All developers covered