ACCENT Petaling Jaya (“Accent Residences”) — Lot 1A, Jalan Kemajuan, Seksyen 13, Bandar Petaling Jaya, Daerah Petaling, SELANGOR: the developer licence is live, but NO SCHEME IS REGISTERED and NO ADVERTISING AND SALES PERMIT HAS EVER BEEN ISSUED — jumlahProjek: 0, projek: []

Why this page exists, when there is almost nothing filed to publish

This is the inverse of a normal project page, and that is deliberate. Four marketing websites are selling this development, one of them under an invented project name and an unlicensed developer name, and not one of them tells a buyer that no housing scheme has been registered and no advertising and sales permit has been issued. The value of this page is its NOT FILED list, not its spec table.

The type schedule — four sources, and not one filed figure between them

Read the disagreements, not the numbers. Keluasan Binaan is NOT FILED, so there is no approved built-up schedule to check anything against. Four sources publish areas and they produce four different top ends for one building: 1,860 sq ft (The Edge), 1,880 (two agent sites), 1,900 (a third) and 2,811 (one third-party marketing site, for “garden variants”). The 2,811 is carried by one source, is 50% above the next highest, and is REFUSED — as is any range that depends on it. The bottom end is the one thing that holds: 1,165 sq ft, agreed to the foot by three independent sources. Bathroom notation is printed exactly as each source gives it, because “3+1” and “4” are not the same thing — the +1 is conventionally a utility bathroom.

Every figure in this section is a marketing figure. Keluasan Binaan is NOT FILED, no statutory contract schedule has been filed, no building plan approval reference exists, and the register carries no unit count, no storey count and no car-park allocation for this project. Nothing here is a price list, a quotation or an offer. The approved schedule is whatever the developer eventually files, and the binding document is the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery.

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.

Seksyen 13, Petaling Jaya — Daerah Petaling, SELANGOR, under MBPJ

The locality is fixed by the land title quoted in a stock-exchange filing, not by marketing. PT 1A, HSD 156434 — a qualified title — in Bandar Petaling Jaya, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor, with the postal address Lot 1A, Jalan Kemajuan, Seksyen 13, 46200 Petaling Jaya. Four published forms of the address agree, which is unusual for this series, and there is one postcode only: 46200. Because the site is in a bandar, there is no mukim and the question does not arise. And no coordinate appears on this page, because no register row exists to carry one and nobody publishes one.

Developer licence 31356, LEISURE EVENT SDN. BHD. — and no registered project to go with it

This is the whole statutory record of this development: one developer licence, and nothing else. Read from the public KPKT TEDUH register on 13 October 2026, with seven developer-swasta search forms run, both projek-swasta serials walked, the HIMS filed-document server probed in both path forms, and a same-session positive control on every one of them. The table below is what the register prints. Everything after the table is what it does not.

Read 13 October 2026 from the public KPKT TEDUH register, developer record 31356. Searches run, each against a same-session positive control: q=LEISURE (8 licensees, this is the first) · q=LEISURE EVENT (the single record) · q=ACCENT (1 hit, and it is a decoy — GOLDENHILL ACCENTURE DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD., code 13943, one project, HOME RESORT at Bentong, PAHANG, on a licence that expired 9 October 2020, whose business address is in Petaling, Selangor, which is exactly what makes it look plausible — refused) · q=AVALAND (ZERO — no KPKT developer in Malaysia has “Avaland” in its name) · q=JAYA 33, q=PJ JAYA, q=JAYA33, q=PELABURAN HARTANAH (all ZERO) · control q=EXSIM = 16. Register statuses change. A licence that is current today can lapse, and a scheme that is unregistered today can be registered next month — which is precisely what this page expects to happen, and when it does, every “NOT FILED” row below becomes readable. Verify the register yourself on the day you decide anything: search by developer code 31356, because there is no project name to search by. Nothing in this table is a price list, a quotation or an offer.

One licence, zero projects. That one line is the finding, and the rest of this page follows from it. This is the second project in this series to sit in that state — a live developer licence carrying no registered scheme — and both licences were issued in 2026. It is the least visible of the register’s states and the easiest to mistake for a clean record, because an empty field looks like a clean field. It is not. It is an unreadable one.

What a buyer loses when nothing is filed — the precise list, not a vague caveat

“Nothing has been filed” is easy to write and easy to skim, so here it is as a list of named statutory fields, each with the Malay label the filed advertisement would print. Every one of these is NOT FILED, and every one of them is NOT FILED for a single reason — no housing scheme has been registered for this development — rather than for twenty separate reasons. Nama Skim / Pemajuan — the registered scheme name: NONE EXISTS. Not wrong, not generic: absent, because there is no project record to carry a nama field. No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan and its validity — the APDL: NEVER ISSUED. Not lapsed, not expired, not a dash, not a placeholder. Never issued. Pihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan — the approving authority: NOT FILED, so MBPJ rests here on an independent publisher, on the title’s own bandar and on jurisdiction, and this page says so. No. Kelulusan Pelan Bangunan — the building-plan approval reference: NOT FILED, and no such reference for this project exists anywhere, so the plan-prefix proof that settles the authority on other pages in this series is unavailable here. Jenis Bangunan — the filed building type: NOT FILED, against four conflicting marketing labels. Pegangan Tanah and the lease expiry: NOT FILED — leasehold is established from the title and the vendor’s “about 50 years remaining”, and the exact expiry date is published by nobody and is not interpolated here. Sekatan Kepentingan — the restriction in interest: NOT FILED. This is the strongest single foreign-buyer signal this series reads, and on this project it is simply unavailable — on a qualified title on which a restriction in interest, an express condition and a land-use category may well sit. Bebanan / Gadaian — the chargee: NOT FILED, and no bank is named by any source. Jumlah Unit: NOT FILED — 231 against 257. Bilangan Tingkat: NOT FILED — 38 is marketing. Tempat Letak Kereta: NOT FILED. Tarikh Dijangka Siap: NOT FILED — five dates circulate and none governs. Harga Jualan Unit Minima / Maksima: NOT FILED — AND there is no registry band either, because projek: [] means there is no project row to carry one. Keluasan Binaan — the built-up schedule: NOT FILED. Jadual G / Jadual H: NOT FILED, so there is no prescribed contract, no HDA liquidated-damages formula, no section 7A housing development account, no statutory defect liability period and no Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims route yet — and the reason is the absence of a registration, not the nature of the title. pindaanTempohSerahKosong: ABSENT — not Ya, not Tidak. Do not infer it. Permit history (Rekod Lesen Terdahulu): UNREADABLE — and there has never been a permit, so there is no history to read in either direction, neither an unpermitted interval to report nor continuous cover to credit. CCC, VP, % built, status.keseluruhan, bakiUnit: UNREADABLE. A filed security schedule: NONE — and no source makes any security claim for this project anyway, which is at least consistent. Coordinates: NONE. And the second-order loss, which matters as much as any of the above and is far easier to miss. The DEVELOPER-CONDUCT fields are unreadable too. statusPemaju, mempunyaiKesalahan, bilanganProjek, the per-component status.rows and the Rekod Lesen Terdahulu licence history live only on projek-swasta/<serial>-<n>. With jumlahProjek: 0 there is no serial, so there is no project endpoint, so none of those fields can be read at all. They are UNREADABLE and this page never writes them as clean. The offence flag is not even present as a field in the licensee record: that is the absence of a field, and the absence of a field is not a clearance. One field needs the opposite statement, and it is worth making precisely. The ethnic-allocation field that a filed advertisement would print does not exist on any surface for this project at all. This page’s usual convention is to say that such a field exists and that its value is withheld. Here the honest statement is different: there is no field. Nothing is being withheld, because there is nothing there — and “we are withholding something” and “there is nothing to withhold” are two different statements, and the reader is entitled to the right one.

The requirement, stated plainly — and no allegation made

Two surfaces describe bookings on this scheme. One agent site calls the product pre-launch with an “official launch scheduled for late 2026” and a price it describes as “an estimated pre-launch base price, subject to final confirmation by the developer”. A third-party marketing site records three of the marketed unit types as “fully booked” and says the project was “launched 2025”. The developer’s own release of 27 August 2026 says the launch is planned for the second half of 2026. Those statements cannot all be true. What an advertising and sales permit is. Under the Housing Development Act, a licensed housing developer must hold an advertising and sales permit before it may advertise or sell units in a housing development. The permit is scheme-specific: it attaches to a registered project, carries a number and validity dates, and is printed in the filed advertisement particulars that this page would normally quote in full. What the register shows. Developer licence 31356 is live. It carries jumlahProjek: 0. There is no registered scheme for this development and therefore no advertising and sales permit for it — and none has ever been issued. Both serial walks return CLIENT_ERROR against a same-session control that returns a full record, and the filed-document server returns nothing against a control path that returns a live brochure. What a buyer should therefore do, which is the only operative part of this section. Before paying any amount of money, signing any booking form, or handing over identity-card details: ask for the advertising and sales permit number and its validity dates in writing, and ask what any money paid is held against, by whom, and under which sale contract. And know that an estate-agency licence is not an advertising permit. Two of the marketing sites print an E(1) agency licence number — one E (1) 1584/28, another E(1)1914 — in the place a permit number would go. An E(1) number licenses an estate agency to act as an agent. It does not permit anyone to advertise or sell a housing development. One of those sites, to its credit, says only that “advertising permit and sales approval details can be inspected at the sales gallery” — which is the right thing to ask for and the right place to ask for it. And now the limit of what this page will say, which is deliberate and which is not hedging. This page states the requirement and the register’s contents. It makes NO allegation about the conduct of the developer, of Avaland Berhad, of any agency, of any negotiator or of any website. Lapse cannot be assessed, because there is nothing to assess, and “no permit has been issued” is not the same statement as “somebody has done something wrong”. A permit may be applied for and granted at any time; registration may follow next month; and a reader who takes nothing else from this page should take the document request, not an inference.

Not published, therefore not on this page — the twenty-five questions nobody answers

Every item below is a real question a buyer would ask, and no source reached answers it. Registration and permission. 1. The registered scheme name — there is none. 2. The advertising and sales permit number and its validity — none issued. 3. The approved building plan reference, and therefore the plan-prefix proof of the authority. Title, and this is the expensive part. 4. The EXACT lease expiry date. “About 50 years remaining” as at 2025 is the entire public record, and a remaining term of about 50 years is materially shorter than the 99-year-from-a-recent-date leases this series usually records — it bears directly on financing margin, financing tenor and resale. 5. The category of land use, the express conditions and any restriction in interest on HSD 156434, and whether the conversion from industrial use has been granted. 6. Whether the title has been converted from qualified (HSD) to final title. 7. Whether the units will be residential or commercial title, and therefore the utility tariffs, the assessment rate and the financing margin. 8. Which statutory contract will apply, Jadual G or Jadual H, and therefore the deposit, the progress-payment ladder, the defect liability period and the late-delivery mechanic. 9. The chargee or financier. No bank is named by anybody. The building. 10. The true unit count — 231 or 257. 11. The approved storey count, the podium and basement level count, and the lift count, on a scheme marketed on a private lift lobby to every home. 12. The car-park allocation per type, as approved. 13. The built-up schedule as approved — four sources disagree on the top end by up to 50%. 14. Whether a commercial or retail component exists at all, its size and its HDA status — nobody describes one, although the developer calls the scheme “commercial” and another publisher calls it “mixed-use”. 15. The maintenance charge and the sinking-fund rate. 16. The gross floor area and the plot ratio — and therefore the density cross-check, which cannot be run. Price and delivery. 17. The statutory selling-price band, minimum and maximum. None filed, and none in the registry either. 18. The binding completion and vacant-possession date. None filed. 19. The construction commencement date — and therefore any float check at all. 20. The main contractor, the architect, the C&S and M&E engineers and the quantity surveyor — six roles, every one named on one construction-data record and every one behind that record’s paywall, together with the exact contract value. Conduct, certification and geography. 21. The licensee’s statusPemaju, its offence flag, its licence history and any sick or abandoned-project record — unreadable, because the licence carries no project. 22. Whether any GreenRE or GBI certification is being sought. 23. Any distance to a school, a market, a highway ramp, an airport, a park, or the announced MRT3 UM station. 24. The lot’s own coordinates — no register row, so no filed lat/lng. 25. Whether the “fully booked” bookings one marketing site reports exist, and on what documents. Ask Louis for this list. He will go and ask for it, and he will tell you which answers came back on paper.

Why this page is tagged Condo & Serviced Apartment and New Launch — and what the developer’s own words do to the label

Taxonomy, stated rather than left to be guessed. This page is filed under Condo & Serviced Apartment and New Launch, under Selangor and Petaling Jaya, and under the developer brand Avaland Berhad — while the page body names the licensee precisely as LEISURE EVENT SDN. BHD., because the taxonomy carries the group brand and the liability sits with the special-purpose company. No Leisure Event term is created, and no Avaland sibling project’s figures, awards, green rows, chargees or dates appear on this page. Condo & Serviced Apartment is right on the balance of the sources: every source that gives a product type calls it a serviced apartment or a high-rise, and the construction-data record’s own category field reads Service Apartment. But the filed building type is NOT FILED, so this is a reading of marketing sources and not a statutory classification, and the page says so. New Launch is right, with the launch language removed, and that combination needs explaining. The correct framing is announced, licensed, NOT YET REGISTERED, no advertising permit, and not yet launched — with the developer’s own stated launch window being 2H 2026. So this page carries no “now selling”, no “launched”, no “open for booking” and no take-up figure anywhere. And the label the developer itself cannot settle. Avaland’s own press release of 1–2 July 2025 calls this a “high-rise commercial development” in its body and places it in the “AVA Prime series” of homes in its CEO’s quote — two labels in one document. StarProperty, 6 February 2026, calls it “a high-rise mixed-use development in Petaling Jaya”. The Edge, 9 October 2026, calls it a “high-rise commercial development” and says it is “marketed as Accent Residences”. The construction-data record says “SERVICED APARTMENT”. The agent sites say serviced apartment on “Commercial Title under HDA regulation”, one of them invoking “Schedule H”. NOTHING FILED SETTLES IT. So Commercial is NOT applied as a category here — the product offered to the public is homes — while the commercial label is quoted on this page in the developer’s own words, because it bears directly on title, tariffs, assessment and financing margin. The location terms, each chosen against a named alternative. Petaling Jaya under Selangor, with the parent state verified before use. Deliberately NOT Seksyen 13 or Section 13 as a locality term, because this site already carries a project at Seksyen 13 SHAH ALAM, in a different district about 20 km away, and one portal has been seen printing “Section 13, Shah Alam” for a Kwasa Damansara project — so “Seksyen 13” belongs in the location LINE and never in the term. Deliberately NOT PJ South, which is a different gazetted locality in this city (Bandar Petaling Jaya Selatan is not Bandar Petaling Jaya). Deliberately NOT Subang Jaya or USJ, which is the licensee’s own registered-office address and the location of three other Avaland projects — the one trap most likely to catch an automated scrape of this register record, whose only address field reads 47650 Selangor with no district at all. And deliberately NOT Kuala Lumpur: only one third-party site’s URL path says KL, and its own breadcrumb contradicts it. That choice is worth RM1,000,000 to a foreign buyer reading this page, and that is not a figure of speech.

Green ratings, awards and QLASSIC — none for this project, and the borrows refused by name

ACCENT Petaling Jaya holds no green rating and no award, and the developer claims none for it. Both halves of that are stated as findings. GreenRE. No entry of any kind for ACCENT Petaling Jaya, for Accent Residences, for “PJ33 Residences” or for LEISURE EVENT SDN. BHD. in any of the four tier tables or in the Bronze certification-entry list. The limits of that reading, stated precisely, because they are not equal: the Platinum tier closed completely at 95 rows with every column populated, which makes the Platinum no-hit a GENUINE clean negative — the fifteenth consecutive consistent run of that table in this series; Gold (130 rows), Silver (141) and Bronze (~332) all TRUNCATE, so for those three the honest phrasing is “no entry in the reachable portion”, never a clean negative; and the Bronze certification-entry list, about 265 complete entries, covers 09 December 2025 back to 04 April 2024 — which is the WRONG WINDOW for this project, because a scheme that bought its land in July 2025 and is still pre-construction would certify, if at all, in 2026. So even the read that looks strongest here carries less weight than it appears to. The other certification body’s directory 404s and its replacement is robots-disallowed, so its silence is INCONCLUSIVE and never a negative — and no source makes any claim under it for this project, so there is nothing to test. The two borrows this page refuses, and they are the most dangerous rows this series has met. FIRST: THE ASCENT @ PARADIGM PJ — WCT Properties Sdn Bhd, GOLD, FINAL, 30 January 2026, tool ENRB v3.3. “ASCENT” is ONE LETTER from “ACCENT”, it is in PETALING JAYA, and the certification is final and recent. Refused: a different licensee, and ENRB is Existing Non-Residential Building — the retrofit of an existing mall or office block. It is not a residential rating and it is not this site. SECOND: PJ33 — PHB Facilities Management Berhad, BRONZE, FINAL, 23 December 2025, tool ENRB v3.3. That is the office tower this site sits next to — The Edge’s own words are “sited next to Plaza 33” — and “PJ33 Residences” is the very name an agent site markets this project under. A name match, a geography match and a marketing-name match at once. Refused: a different licensee, and ENRB again — an existing office building, not a residential scheme and not this one. Five same-group rows are refused too, on the licensee and not on the brand: Aetas Damansara (One Residence Sdn Bhd, PLATINUM, 12 August 2025, RES v3.2) — same group, same city, residential tool, top tier: the most seductive of them all; Aetas Seputeh (Ardent Residence Sdn Bhd, Platinum, 9 February 2024); Avalon @ Cybersouth (Ecolake Residence Sdn Bhd, Silver); ANJA BANGI (USJ One Avenue Sdn Bhd, Silver); and Alira Subang Jaya (Next Delta Sdn Bhd, Silver, final). Every one is a different licensee on a different site. None attaches to this project. Also refused: Ascent Park (a Johor township tool), four Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor rows that match only because this project sits on Jalan Kemajuan, Plaza @ Kelana, Jaya 99, and The GLAMOUR – EcoLakes My Phuoc, a Vietnam project of another group that collides almost perfectly with an Avaland subsidiary’s name. Two standing rules did the work: read the TOOL CODE, not just the rating — ENRB, NRB, IND and TS are not residential ratings — and match on the LICENSEE, not on the brand. Awards and QLASSIC. The project has won nothing, because it has not been built. A QLASSIC score is not merely absent but impossible, since QLASSIC assesses the workmanship of built work and this scheme is pre-construction. And every Avaland award belongs to the company or to another development, and none of it is allowed to migrate onto this page: a malaysiaGBC Leadership in Sustainability Award 2026 (corporate); Star Property Awards 2026 and 2025 (the developer’s own posts carry photo galleries and no award names and no project names in text, so no category and no recipient can be stated for either); a Malaysia Developer Awards 2025 placing (corporate); two Asia Pacific Property Awards 2023–2024 won under the group’s former name (a different brand era and other projects); and award artwork for a masterplan rather than for any tower. Three renders on the developer’s own brand-series page carry the alt text “Award” and are of three OTHER projects. The honest line: the project has won nothing; its developer’s group has won things, for other buildings.

Imagery: this page carries none, and here is exactly why

No image on this page, no gallery, no featured image, and no stock photograph substituted for one. Four independent reasons, and the first is the one that would still apply even if a render landed tomorrow. FIRST: the scheme is unregistered and unapproved, and its own sources disagree about how many units it has. No building plan has been approved, no building type has been filed, and the unit count is disputed 231 against 257. Any render is therefore a pre-approval concept, and an undated render on a scheme in that state may depict a configuration that is never built. This series has twice published pages where exactly that had happened to a re-planned scheme, and this is the same risk at its sharpest. SECOND: the developer’s own content system holds nothing for this project, and that is a genuine negative rather than a failed lookup. media?search=accent and ?search=petaling both return [], while the same endpoint with a sibling project’s name returns ten real items with proper titles. And the project is absent from the developer’s own list of 29 projects, and absent from its own brand-series page — so page placement, the identifier that has rescued several hosts in this series, is unavailable. That one host also serves 29 projects across at least six townships out of a single upload tree, with empty alt text throughout and the word “Award” used as alt text on three different projects’ renders — so a filename or placement pick there hands you another development. THIRD: the official-looking candidate microsite is robots-disallowed AND its ownership is unestablished. accent-petalingjaya.com cannot be read by this tool, and nobody has established whether it is the developer’s site or a fourth agent site. An image whose owner is unknown cannot be captioned honestly. The three readable agent microsites do carry renders, with no content-management system, no caption naming a subject, no alt text of value and no provenance of any kind — and three of them are run by individual negotiators who state in their own footers that they are not the developer. A render on an agent site is not evidence of what the developer will build. FOURTH, and it is the cleanest illustration of the problem: the two images an independent publisher actually ran for this story are a generic photograph of Seksyen 13 industrial lots and a photograph of the DUTCH LADY FACTORY — which is a DIFFERENT project on a different site by a different developer. Neither depicts this site, and either one, lifted and captioned, would have become a lie on this page. What would change this. A Chrome pass on the robots-blocked microsite, establishing first whose site it is — and if it turns out to be an agent site, that does not raise the grade. Or the developer’s own sales kit through Louis’s project folder, which would also answer several items on the NOT FILED list above. Or the developer’s CMS after the launch, since the group has a consistent habit of posting a render when it launches. Until one of those lands: no image, and no caption. This page would rather carry no picture than caption a guess.

What this page does not publish, and why

This agency has one absolute compliance instruction and this page applies it literally. No discount figure, no rebate figure, no nett price, no promotion information, no incentive-package detail and no commission information appears anywhere on this page, from any source, whatever its provenance — and those six terms appear exactly once each on this page, here in this sentence, and nowhere else. A seventh term is named here for completeness and also appears exactly once, here: Bumiputera. And on this project the honest statement about it is NOT the usual one. There is no ethnic-allocation field anywhere — not in a filed advertisement, because there is none; not in a register row, because there is none; and not on any marketing surface either. So nothing is being withheld under that head, because there is nothing there to withhold — and that is a different statement from withholding a value, which is what this page says on projects where the field exists. Now the price, and it needs three separate statements rather than one. STATEMENT ONE: there is no filed statutory price band and no public registry band either. Harga Jualan Unit Minima / Maksima is NOT FILED because no advertisement has been filed, and the registry band does not exist because projek: [] means there is no project row to carry one. So the below-filed-minimum test that this series runs on other projects is INAPPLICABLE here — not failed, not inconclusive: inapplicable, because there is no minimum to be below. And the register-against-filing splice test and the GDV-against-the-sum-of-filed-minima test are both unavailable in every direction. Those are findings in their own right and they are stated rather than left as a silence. STATEMENT TWO: two pre-launch “from” figures are in circulation and this page publishes NEITHER — and the reason is ACCURACY, not a compliance bar. That distinction matters, because a gap with no reason given reads as concealment. They are RM230,000 apart, which is 24% on figures for the same product, and on the smallest marketed type they imply RM833 psf against RM1,030 psf. One is described by its own publisher as “an estimated pre-launch base price, subject to final confirmation by the developer”; on the other site, every per-type price is listed as “on request” and the figure sits in prose. Neither is a statutory figure and neither is a public registry figure, which are the only two classes of price this page is permitted to carry. Both are agent estimates for an unlaunched scheme with no advertising and sales permit. And there is no sale and purchase agreement price to show, because there is no SPA. So: withheld for accuracy. None of the six terms above is engaged by either figure, and the page says that explicitly so that the withholding cannot be mistaken for the concealment of something worse. Which KIND of figure is being withheld matters too, and this is a fourth kind this series has had to name: a PRE-LAUNCH AGENT ESTIMATE with no statutory floor in existence at all to test it against — different from a developer-era “from” figure below a filed minimum, different from a resale asking floor below an older registered minimum, and different from an asking range on an unlicensed component. STATEMENT THREE: what IS published instead, and why each item qualifies. The developer’s own announced GDV of approximately RM320 million — its own published figure, in its own press release and in two independent publishers’ reports of it. Arithmetic performed on this page on that GDV — RM1,385,281 per unit on 231 units, RM1,245,136 on 257, 69.3% of the Selangor Zone 1 floor, and a psf ceiling of RM737 to RM1,189 — labelled as my arithmetic on the developer’s own GDV every time it appears, and labelled as a CEILING rather than an estimate, because the GDV presumably includes any commercial component. And the land price: RM49,000,000 cash for 94,596 sq ft, RM518.01 psf, from a statutory stock-exchange announcement — a transaction between two companies, not a unit price. And public government registry transaction data for Seksyen 13, from an independent publisher’s own analysis of registered transactions: RM850–970 psf for newer completed stock, about RM967 psf at Atwater, Residensi Ryan & Miho about 10% lower across 37 transactions, PJ Midtown down 7%, and rents up about a third between 2022 and 2025 — each labelled as public registry data for the neighbourhood and not as a price for this project, and always with: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. And what is refused outright, by name. A claim that leasehold stock resells at a fixed percentage below freehold — uncited, refused. A rental range for these units — uncited, and it engages this agency’s own rule against rental and yield projections, so it is refused twice over. Indicative gross yields for neighbouring schemes — published by the registry analysis and NOT reproduced here, because this page carries no yield figure of any kind. A monthly instalment illustration — which is arithmetic on somebody’s assumed loan, not a price and not a product fact. And every take-up claim, including “fully booked” on three unit types. Where a real figure will come from. The price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery, once a scheme has been registered and an advertising and sales permit issued — and on this project neither has happened yet. Until then the only honest answer to “how much is it?” is that nobody can tell you, including this page. Ask Louis, and ask him for the permit first.

How this page was built, and its limits

Everything above is either traced to a named published source or marked as not published. The spine is the public KPKT TEDUH register licensee record for developer code 31356, read 13 October 2026 — and on this project the spine is unusually short, because the register carries one licence and no project. Seven limits are worth stating plainly. First, and it governs everything else: there is no registered scheme and no filed advertisement, in any reachable path form. So there is no statutory document to quote, no second generation to diff, and the entire NOT FILED list above follows from that single absence rather than from twenty separate failures to look. Both serial walks and both HIMS path forms were run with same-session positive controls, and the newer HIMS path form cannot exist at all, because the id it needs is a register-project id and there is no register project. Second, the developer-conduct fields are UNREADABLE rather than clean, and this page never writes them as clean. That is the least visible of the register’s states and the easiest to misread, because an empty field looks like a clean field. Third, the whole product specification rests on marketing sources, and three of the four are run by individual negotiators, two of whom market the project under an invented name and attribute it to a company that holds no developer licence. That attribution is recorded as UNSUPPORTED rather than disproved, because a one-word query on the register was not exhausted and a two-word query on it can miss where each word alone hits. The identification of the project itself rests on five independent legs — the same street, the same 2.17 acres, the same 231 units, the same 38 storeys, the same three built-ups to within about 10 sq ft, and the same private-lift feature — and on an independent publisher’s enumeration of this section’s pipeline, which names three new schemes and no “PJ33 Residences” at all. Fourth, the construction record is behind a paywall in a specific and consequential way. One record names six companies across six roles and locks every name, together with the exact contract value. So there is no commencement date, which means the contractor’s-programme-against-original-VP float check cannot be run in EITHER direction — and in any case there is no contractual vacant possession date to run it against. And that record’s own “target completion October 2026” is internally impossible against its own blank construction start and its own pre-construction status verified 29 July 2026: it is recorded here and rejected. Fifth, the green register truncates on three of its four tiers, so where this page says there is no entry it means no entry in the reachable portion; the one genuinely clean negative is the top tier, and the Bronze entry list spans the wrong window for a 2026-era scheme. Sixth, two geographic answers rest on weaker evidence than this series prefers, and both are labelled wherever they appear. The approving authority rests on an independent publisher, on the title’s own bandar and on jurisdiction, because no plan-approval reference exists to carry the usual prefix. And no coordinate is printed at all, because the register row that would carry one does not exist. The mukim, by contrast, is not a gap: the land sits in a bandar, so the question does not arise, and this page prints that answer rather than a blank. Seventh, no imagery of publishable grade exists on any reachable host, so this page carries none and gives four reasons above rather than a picture with a caption nobody can stand behind. And the limit that is a credit rather than a caveat, which deserves to be said as plainly as the criticisms. Because the developer publishes no statutory panel at all — 36 pages on its corporate site and not one of them an APDL page, a disclaimer or a statutory block, and this project on none of its 29 project pages — there is no stale panel to contradict a register. No below-floor price table on its own website, no advertising-permit validity printed into a licence field, no fabricated validity date, no superseded generation left standing. The entire family of developer-data-strip errors this series keeps finding CANNOT OCCUR on this project. And the obvious corollary, which is the other half of the same fact: the developer publishes no particulars at all, so every number on this page came from a register, a stock-exchange filing, a publisher, or an agent — and the page tells you which, every time.

Questions a buyer actually asks about ACCENT Petaling Jaya

Nearby, same-developer, and same-situation pages — each one built the same way

Published 13 October 2026 · last verified 13 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register (developer code 31356; both project serials walked with positive controls), the HIMS filed-document server, two Bursa Malaysia announcements, the GreenRE register across all four tiers, and the developer’s own published releases. Marketing information, not an offer. Not a price list, not a quotation. Register statuses change: a scheme that is unregistered today may be registered tomorrow, and when it is, every “NOT FILED” row on this page becomes readable. Verify before you rely on anything here.