Dahlia & Daniel, Taman Seri Residensi, North Klang — filed as Seri Resi Ph3a - Dahlia & Daniel, registration 14239-6 — ONE registration, TWO type codes, ONE page: DELIVERED ABOUT 7½ WEEKS EARLY WITH NO EXTENSION SOUGHT OR GRANTED (CCC 18/06/2025 and vacant possession 19/06/2025 against a contractual date of 11/08/2025, pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Tidak) — 64 two-storey houses filed as Rumah Berkembar, SEMI-DETACHED, marketed as “linked bungalows”, on Jadual G with individual freehold titles, licensee NEU ESTATES SDN BHD (a Titijaya Land Berhad subsidiary), filed statutory band RM1,086,000 – RM1,961,000, Daerah Klang, Selangor

Six things this page says that a brochure will not

Each of the six is sourced, and each is a reason a reader should keep reading rather than call a hotline. Four of them are negatives, and the negatives are the point.

Dahlia and Daniel: two type codes, one schedule, and a difference nobody publishes

The developer’s e-brochure is the only per-type schedule that exists anywhere, and it gives A1 Dahlia and A2 Daniel identical numbers on every field it publishes. No image of a floor plan is published for either type by any source, so each card below carries text rather than a plan. Ask Louis for the plans and the SPA type schedule.

Every figure above is from the developer’s e-brochure, a filed statutory advertisement or the KPKT TEDUH register, and each is attributed in its own card. Areas are the developer’s or the register’s; metric-to-imperial conversions are ours and are labelled. No floor plan image is published by any source for either type. Nothing here is a price list, a quotation or an offer.

The only genuinely informative image anyone publishes, and why there are no photographs

Say what these are. The three images in the strip at the top of this page are composed marketing banners, not photographs of the houses. The image above is a township site plan. On a phase that received its Certificate of Completion and Compliance on 18 June 2025 and was handed over on 19 June 2025, not one public source publishes a photograph of a completed Dahlia or Daniel house with a confirmed subject. The developer’s own media library carries a “gallery” and a set of “progress photos” that are the same logo file repeated, and its only large recent photographs are subject-less uploads with empty titles, alt text and captions, which cannot be captioned honestly and were therefore declined. Nothing from any other phase of this township — and in particular nothing from the preceding Aster & Adam phase, which shares this licensee, this township and this product type — crosses onto this page. On a completed scheme, knowing that no photograph of the delivered product exists in public is worth more than a rendered impression. Ask Louis for site photographs.

Taman Seri Residensi, North Klang — Daerah Klang, Selangor

Three actual distances are published for this project, all by one portal, all to schools. Everything else any source offers is a travel time, and a travel time is not a distance. No distance is derived from a time on this page, and no rail proximity is published at all, because no source names a station.

Filed particulars: Seri Resi Ph3a - Dahlia & Daniel

This is the spine of the page, not a footnote. Every cell below is a filed value read from the KPKT TEDUH register, from the P45 filed advertisement P45-20250623-00016399, from the old-path filed advertisement under files/14239/14239-6/, or from the developer’s own Dahlia-Daniel-Ebrochure.pdf. Where those four surfaces disagree, the cell prints both values and says which is filed. Read 21 October 2026.

How to read this table. A cell with one value means every surface agrees. A cell with a small note means they do not, and the note names each surface. Nothing in this table is derived or estimated except where it says so. The register is the KPKT TEDUH public register; “P45 filing” is the filed statutory advertisement particulars lodged under the P45 path; “old-path filing” is the earlier filed advertisement lodged under files/14239/14239-6/; the e-brochure is the developer’s own PDF. Read 21 October 2026.

The filed statutory unit selling price band is a public record of the filed contract-price range. It is reproduced here as a filed band and nothing else — not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer — and it is not today’s asking price for any particular unit. For a price you can act on, ask for the current price list and the sale and purchase agreement.

The delivery record, in full — and why the negative is the story

This is the strongest delivery record this site has recorded on a Selangor landed scheme, and it rests on a negative. The statutory chain is short and every link is filed: the first sale and purchase agreement under this registration is dated 11 August 2023; the Jadual G delivery period is 24 Bulan; so the contractual vacant possession date was 11 August 2025. The Certificate of Completion and Compliance is dated 18 June 2025 and vacant possession 19 June 2025 — about 7½ weeks, 53 days, inside the contractual date. And the field that matters most is the one that is empty. pindaanTempohSerahKosong reads Tidak and tempohTambahanDiluluskan reads -: no amendment to the delivery period was applied for, and none was approved. A developer that asks for an extension and then meets the extended date has met a date it moved. This one met the date it originally agreed, early, without moving it. Across all seven registrations on licence 14239 this licensee has never taken a delivery extension. Approved extensions have been running at six of six and beyond on comparable schemes elsewhere on this site, so this is a real break in the pattern rather than a routine outcome. The filed brochure’s own expected-completion month, Jun 2025, was met to the month. One honest qualification. The old-path filed advertisement states an expected completion of Dec 2025 while the P45 filing and the e-brochure both say Jun 2025. June is what happened. The December figure is printed here because it is filed, and because it is the reason at least one portal prints one date in its table and a different one in its prose.

The advertising and sales permit: lapsed, and that is a fact rather than a warning

The permit 14239-6/05-2026/0565(R)-(L) ran from 02/05/2025 to 01/05/2026 and has been lapsed for 173 days as at 21 October 2026. On most pages a lapsed advertising and sales permit is worth a hard look, because it means a developer that is still selling has lost the instrument that authorises it to advertise and sell. Here it means almost nothing, and the reason is the CCC. This scheme reached peratusSiap 100.00, took its Certificate of Completion and Compliance on 18 June 2025 and handed over on 19 June 2025. There is nothing left to advertise under permit. lapsed permit is therefore recorded as a fact, with its date, and not dressed up as a red flag. Two things that must not be confused with it. First, the developer licence is a different instrument and runs to 26/09/2027; licence validity must never be passed off as permit validity, and this page keeps them in separate columns. Second, neither filed advertisement prints a usable permit number at all — the P45 filing prints a bare - and the old-path filing prints the literal placeholder xxxxx-x/xx-xxxx/xxxxxxxx(P). From the filings alone the lapse question cannot even be asked. The register and the developer’s own e-brochure both print the real permit number and they agree, which is why this page can state it. The suffix tells you something too: the superseded generation carries (N) and the current one (R), and the -(L) tail marks the landed instrument.

Two filed advertisements, one registration — the biggest unresolved item on this page

This single registration index carries TWO filed KPKT advertisements, lodged under both path forms, and they disagree on seven fields. This is not a portal error and it is not a reading mistake: both documents are filed, both are statutory, and this page prints both rather than picking the convenient one. They disagree on the scheme name — one files Dahlia alone and is the only document anywhere that drops Daniel, while still reporting the full 64 units and the full price band; the licence suffix, (A) against (R) on the same licence number; the approving authority’s name, Majlis Perbandaran Klang against Majlis Bandaraya Diraja Klang; the tenure wording, Pegangan Bebas against Kekal; the unit count, 64 unit stated on one and not stated on the other; the expected completion date, Dec 2025 against Jun 2025; and the land figure, 42 ekar of whole land against a 40′ x 70′ lot size. This is the explanation for a contradiction readers may already have met: one major portal prints 01 June 2025 in its completion table and “set for completion in December 2025” in its own description, on one page. It scraped both filed generations and reconciled neither. That same portal also names two different developers for one project identifier — the licensee on one route and the listed parent on another — and neither of its pages explains the other. Both are true in their own sense, and the only thing that resolves them is the parent’s audited corporate structure. None of the seven disagreements is adjudicated here. What is settled is the district: whichever authority name you take, no leg points outside Klang.

Foreign buyers: no, on two independent grounds — and the expired circular that would say otherwise

The answer is no, and it is no twice over. First, on price. Daerah Klang is in Selangor Zone 1, where the published floor for foreign acquisition of residential property is RM2,000,000. The dearest unit in the filed statutory band is RM1,961,000. It misses the floor by RM39,000, which is 1.95%. So zero of the 64 units in this registration reach the Zone 1 floor. Not one. For completeness, the Selangor table reads: Zone 1 — Petaling, Gombak, Hulu Langat, Sepang and Klang — RM2,000,000; Zone 2 — Kuala Selangor and Kuala Langat — RM2,000,000; Zone 3 — Hulu Selangor — RM1,000,000; Sabak Bernam — not verified, so no figure is stated for it. The Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur figure of RM1,000,000 is not applicable here; this is Selangor. Second, on title, and this bar stands on its own. The sale contract is Jadual G, the permit tail is -(L), the official project domain states the units are individually titled, and the product is landed freehold. Per Pekeliling PTG Selangor Bil. 1/2014, landed freehold property is not open to foreign acquisition in Selangor at all, whatever the price. Either bar is sufficient. Both apply. And now the trap, because it bites exactly here. Selangor Circular 2/2020’s RM1,500,000 window has EXPIRED and is not current. RM1,961,000 would CLEAR an RM1,500,000 floor. So anyone reaching for the lapsed figure — and it is still quoted in circulation — would conclude that the upper part of this scheme is open to foreign buyers, which is wrong twice over. This is the first project on this site where the expired circular would have flipped the answer rather than merely softened it. The current figure is RM2,000,000. The RM1,500,000 figure is expired. Do not let anyone quote it at you, and do not let Zone 3’s RM1,000,000 migrate here either. If you are a foreign buyer, get this in writing from the Selangor land office before you pay anything, and ask Louis to put the request in for you.

Density, and the three township acreages — why no figure appears anywhere on this page

Density is uncomputable here, and the “Low Density” claim on three developer surfaces is unsupported. The reason is not that nobody published an acreage. It is that three incompatible ones were published, one of them audited. Titijaya Land Berhad’s Annual Report FY2024 says the township “encompass[es] 21 acres of freehold land” across six phases. The filed old-path advertisement says 42 acres. The project page, the township page, the official project domain and an agency site all say 4.8 acres — and the project page calls that 4.8 “lush greenery” while the township page tabulates the same number as “total acreage”. One website, two incompatible meanings for one number. A portal follows the filing with 42. So units divided by parcel is undefined, because the parcel has three values. And it would remain undefined even if the acreage were settled, for a second reason: no source publishes Dahlia & Daniel’s own parcel area at all. The only land figures tied to this phase are the per-unit lots, 40′×70′ standard and up to 50′×70′ on the township table. Density against a township is not the measure anyway — the measure is units over the project’s own parcel. And the 4.8 acre figure must never be used as a denominator, because the developer itself describes it as greenery, and using green open space as a project’s land area is exactly the error this site has caught before. No density figure is published here, in either direction. Closed by: the approved layout plan, or a planning record from the local authority.

The seven registrations on licence 14239 — neighbours, not this product

bilanganProjek: 7, and the walk closes cleanly: 14239-8 returns nothing. All seven are daerah: Klang, negeri: Selangor, and all seven are Jadual G where the field is printed. They are named here as township context and nothing more. No band, no date, no certification and no image from any of them crosses onto this page. 14239-1 Seri Residensi (fennel), marketed Fennel — Rumah Kluster, 48 units, two storeys, filed band RM686,340–911,400, CCC 14/02/2018, 100%. 14239-2 — filed misspelled as Seri Resindensi, marketed Primrosé — Rumah Kluster, 76 units in the register against 136 on the developer’s township page, two storeys, filed band RM843,000–1,200,000, CCC 12/03/2018, 100%. (The misspelling is in the register. Nobody should “correct” a register quotation.) 14239-3 Seri Residensi-roseville, marketed Rosevillé — Rumah Kluster, 60 units, single storey, filed band RM631,000–850,000, CCC 23/08/2019, 100%. 14239-4 Rumah Selangorku — Rumah Teres, 256 units, filed band RM200,000–247,000, permit CANCELLED at peratusSiap 10.27%. 14239-5 Seri Residensi-aster, marketed Aster & Adam — Rumah Berkembar, 50 units, two storeys, filed band RM899,000–1,208,400, CCC and vacant possession 02/02/2024, 100%. This is the registration that settles the one-page question: two marketed names, one registration, same convention. 14239-6 — this page. 14239-7 Laman Idaman — Rumah Teres, 256 units, filed band RM300,000–569,428, Lancar, peratusSiap 39.10%, vacant possession due 23/02/2028. One observation, offered and not adjudicated: 14239-4 and 14239-7 both carry exactly 256 units, which invites the inference that the later registration re-registers the cancelled one’s land. The bands differ substantially and no document says so, so this page does not conclude it. Closed by: the two registrations’ land schedules.

The affordable-housing registration on this licence is a NEIGHBOUR, and nothing from it reaches this product

Klang is a very likely location for state affordable housing, and on this licence it is — but not on this product. 14239-4 is filed with the literal scheme name Rumah Selangorku: 256 terrace units, a state-controlled band of RM200,000–247,000, and its permit was cancelled at 10.27% built. 14239-7 Laman Idaman is also 256 terrace units, now at 39.10%, with vacant possession due 23 February 2028. Dahlia & Daniel is NOT a state affordable scheme and has no affordable component of its own: Jadual G, a filed floor of RM1,086,000, Rumah Berkembar, its own permit, its own CCC. So the eligibility machinery that governs state affordable stock does NOT attach to a house in this registration. That machinery — the household income ceiling, the test that neither applicant nor spouse has previously owned a home in the state, compulsory registration with the state housing board, and a five-year transfer moratorium running from the sale and purchase agreement — belongs to the Rumah Selangorku and Laman Idaman siblings. It must never be attached to an RM1,086,000 semi-detached house, and this page states that explicitly so that nobody does. For completeness: the state housing board’s own project list, updated 10 September 2026, carries no row for this township, this scheme, either product name, the licensee or the brand. That absence is corroboration, not proof — the list carries only stock open for application.

Not published, therefore not on this page

Seventeen things a buyer would ask that no source answers. Each is named with the document that would close it, because that is what Louis will go and ask the developer for. 1. What distinguishes a Dahlia from a Daniel. Same built-up, lot, bed and bath count, car porch and band. (The SPA type schedule, or the approved plans.) 2. The mukim. Not printed on any filed document. (The issue document of title.) 3. The lot or PT number for this phase. The site plan shows a township-wide range PT 72961–PT 73130 with nothing tied to this registration. (The title, or the Jadual G land schedule.) 4. This phase’s own parcel area, and therefore density. (The approved layout plan.) 5. Whether D1 and D2 are real types. (The SPA type schedule.) 6. Why the register says three bedrooms and every other source says four. (The approved plans.) 7. What the register’s 243 m² upper built-up bound belongs to. No developer document has it. (A corner-unit floor plan, or the SPA schedule.) 8. The interest restriction. The field is absent entirely from one filing and reads Tidak dinyatakan on the other. (The title.) 9. Any encumbrance or chargee. Labelled and left empty on one filing, a bare dash on the other. Unencumbered cannot be concluded from an empty field. (A title search.) 10. The street address as filed. No filed document prints one; two portals give two different road words. (The SPA.) 11. Any rail station, and any distance to one. No source names one. 12. Any maintenance or sinking-fund charge for the gated scheme. 13. The management model after vacant possession — joint management body, residents’ association or developer appointment. 14. What the parent’s awards page claims. It could not be read, so no award is published here. 15. How many units are sold today. The latest figures are 25.0% take-up at FYE2024 and 41 of 64 unsold at the May 2025 permit generation. Both are stale. 16. Whether the 2.4 m walkway and bicycle track was built as specified. Filed as a specification; no post-CCC source confirms delivery. 17. Any photograph of a completed Dahlia or Daniel house. Nobody publishes one, four months past handover and counting.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction to this site is absolute, and it is the reason some numbers that exist in IQI project material are missing here. This page carries no discount figure, no rebate figure, no nett price, no promotion or offer term, and no commission information — not in words, not in a table, and not inside an image. The one price shape it does publish is the filed statutory unit selling price band, RM1,086,000 – RM1,961,000, which is a contract-price range agreed to the ringgit on both ends by four surfaces, and it is published as a filed band and nothing else: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. Three “from RM___” shapes exist for this project and all three figures are withheld. Two of them sit BELOW the filed statutory minimum — one of them on the official project domain itself, the other on an independent agency site — and they carry two different sub-minimum numbers. The third is a derived per-square-foot figure on a portal which, multiplied by the published built-up, also lands below the filed minimum; the breach is not visible in the per-square-foot figure itself, and that is exactly why no per-square-foot figure appears anywhere on this page. Two of the three sit beside a conditional buyer inducement, and this page names the class and never the items, because listing them while claiming to withhold them would publish them. A fourth figure exists on a portal page for a different phase of this township, and a neighbour’s price must not cross onto this page at all. The ethnic-allocation field is a FIELD — not a quota, and not a lot-title classification. All three documents — the P45 filing, the old-path filing and the e-brochure — print a Diskaun Bumiputera field. The field exists, and that sentence is the whole of what this page says about it, because the value is never published here. A portal published a percentage in that field and it is withheld. There is no unit quota on any surface and no lot-title class: the interest-restriction field is absent entirely from one filing and reads Tidak dinyatakan on the other. Three distinct shapes, and the one that exists here is the field. If you want any of the withheld figures, ask Louis directly. That is what this rule is for: a number that moves with a campaign belongs in a conversation with a named, licensed agent, not on a public page where it will be stale and quoted back at you.

Decoys refused by name, and the licensee established by code

The licensee was established by licence CODE 14239 before any name was believed, and every candidate below was refused on that code. The searches that found them returned zero developers for either product name, against a working positive control, so those zeros are real rather than an interface failure. Refused, and the most dangerous one first: a Dahlia at Bukit Puchong — an exact first-name match, landed, with a 2025 CCC within weeks of ours, and it holds a FINAL green certification that this project does not. Different licensee, registration 6533-18, Daerah Sepang, 43 units. It is confirmed live, and its certification must not migrate onto this page in either direction. A large township developer whose licence code is 3927 and whose own township IS in Daerah Klang — the same district, with 167 registrations under one licence, which is exactly the many-phases-one-licence shape this page is built on. Refused by code: 3927 is not 14239. A Dahlia in a Sepang affordable range, a Dahlia phase inside a botanical series in Daerah Petaling, and a Dahlia terrace product line from a different major landed developer — all exact name matches, all different licensees. An Aman Residensi in the SAME mukim and the SAME district, and two further controlled-price schemes in that mukim — same place, different licensees. And the likeliest accidental borrow of all: this parent’s own Seiring Residensi, 264 @ Seiring and Seiring Square — same parent, and “Residensi” again, so a careless search for the brand plus “Residensi” plus Selangor lands there. Different registrations, different localities. Nothing crosses. Three further axes worth naming because they are subtle: a green-register row matching on the phase designation “Phase 3A”, which is a generic phase label and not an identifier; a row carrying a sibling phase’s own word Idaman inside an unrelated industrial project in Kapar; and the archaic spelling Kelang, which matches several unrelated schemes. The six sibling registrations on this licence are NOT decoys. They are neighbours, they are named above as township context, and the distinction between a neighbour and a decoy is the whole point of keeping them in separate sections.

A note on place names, in both languages

Daerah Klang is the district and Klang is the town. On the Chinese version of this page the town is written with the rendering that is already in house use on this site, measured against this site’s own published pages rather than transliterated. Two compounds had to be excluded from that measurement and must never be used for this town: one means Klang Valley, which is a region and not this district, and the other means Old Klang Road, which is a different place entirely — it is in Kuala Lumpur. A naive count that kept both compounds would have over-stated house usage by about ten times. The same confusion exists in this site’s English taxonomy, where an old-klang-road locality term sits under Kuala Lumpur and would be matched by a careless search for “Klang”. It is not attached to this project, and the Chinese compound was excluded for exactly the same reason. And Kapar has no verified Chinese rendering in this site’s records — one candidate returns a single unconfirmed hit and another returns none — so it is carried in Latin script on both language versions and this page says why rather than inventing a transliteration. Shah Alam’s Chinese name appears nowhere on this page; it is a different place, and it reaches this project only through a travel-time claim that is not published here as a distance.

Dahlia & Daniel — frequently asked questions, answered from the filings

If you are looking at landed homes in Selangor, also see

Published 21 October 2026 · last verified 21 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register, the P45 filed advertisement P45-20250623-00016399, the old-path filed advertisement, Dahlia-Daniel-Ebrochure.pdf, three developer-controlled web surfaces and Titijaya Land Berhad’s audited Annual Report FY2024 · marketing information, not an offer