Helix2 @ PJ South, Petaling Jaya — registered as Residensi Heliks, KPKT 30099-1: 500 Schedule H serviced apartments, complete, and delivered two days inside the contractual date — and there is no Helix phase 1

Six things about Helix2 that are true, sourced, and published nowhere else

This project has the cleanest filing record this site has examined — and four genuine problems a buyer will not find in any brochure. Both halves are below.

The filed unit schedule — 12 type codes, 6 built-ups, identical in both generations

Taken from the statutory unit and fixture schedule, not from any narrative page. Nothing is omitted in either direction: the filing accounts for every type code the marketing uses, and the marketing introduces no type the filing lacks. That is rare, and it is recorded here as a point in the developer’s favour. Bedroom and bathroom counts are NOT PRINTED per type in either generation — the plan sheets label Bilik Tidur Utama, Bilik Tidur 2 and Bilik Tidur 3 but map none of them to a type code. The register gives project-level ranges only: 2 to 3 bedrooms, 1 to 2 bathrooms. So no bedroom count on this page is presented as a filed fact. And every type has exactly ONE kitchen sink in BOTH generations, so there is no fixture support for a dual-key product — and, unusually, nobody claims one.

All built-ups above are the filed figures from the statutory unit and fixture schedule, identical in both HIMS generations. Built-ups are labelled kps in the statutory block and sf in the unit table of the same document. Bedroom counts attributed to portals or to an agent site are labelled as such and are not filed facts. Nothing on this page is a price list, a quotation or an offer.

Every image on this page, with where it came from and what it does and does not establish

How these images were checked. Negative controls were run on all three hosts before anything was used, including a plausible-but-nonexistent filename inside a real folder whose genuine files are numbered (1), (2) and (3). On all three hosts the polarity is INVERTED: a real file answers with a server error and a bogus path answers with a client error. Every URL used was reachability-tested individually. Refused on principle: the three Helix2 award plaques, which are award artwork and not project imagery (and the ESG one is filenamed to the parent company with no project string in it, so page placement is its only attribution) · every Drupal image-style derivative served through /styles/<style>/public/...?itok=<hash>, which are hashed-token auto-thumbnails — the original paths were reconstructed and verified instead · the six community-event photographs · one agent site’s eleven images, which have empty alt text and include four floor-plan scans of unknown provenance · and every listing photograph on Mudah, iProperty and PropertyGuru, which are user-supplied. No asset title on any of the five hosts examined embedded a price figure, so nothing was refused on that ground.

Where Helix2 @ PJ South actually is, and where its address came from

No filing gives a street address at all. The fullest address of any source — “Jalan PJS 5/27, PJS 5, Bandar Petaling Jaya Selatan, Daerah Petaling, 46150 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan” — comes from the main contractor’s own project page, along with the client name, the storey count and the unit count. That is worth saying plainly, because it tells you where this page’s address actually comes from. And there is a straight contradiction on the street number: Jalan PJS 5/27 (the contractor) against Jalan PJS 5/30 (EdgeProp record 52052, the developer’s sponsored article, and one agent site). Unresolved, and this page prints both. There is no location map, no site plan and no facility image on any reachable host, so this block is text only and the map below is a plain coordinate link.

Residensi Heliks — KPKT project 30099-1, as the statutory record prints it

Four statutory surfaces, and no fifth. The current filed advertisement brochure, a still-live superseded generation, the filed newspaper advertisement, and the public KPKT TEDUH register. The developer published no statutory panel at all — eupe.com.my has no /apdl page, no /disclaimer and no statutory block on the project page, and its Simplified Brochure’s disclaimer gives two company names and two registration numbers and then no licence number, no permit number, no approving authority, no plan reference, no tenure, no unit count, no storeys, no completion date and no price. So the register plus the two filed generations were the entire record, and this page says that rather than implying the developer published particulars it did not. One filing oddity worth printing before you read the table: in both HIMS generations the string Residensi Heliks is printed against the label Nama Pemaju Perumahan — the developer-name field — not against any project-name field.

Sources, in order of authority: the current filed HIMS advertisement brochure (files/30099/P45/P45-20250729-00016758/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf), the superseded filed generation (files/30099/30099-1/IKLAN_BROSUR_01.pdf), the filed newspaper advertisement (files/30099/30099-1/IKLAN_AKHBAR_01.pdf), and the KPKT TEDUH public register record 30099-1, read on 9 October 2026. The filed advertisement states that it was approved by Jabatan Perumahan Negara and that particulars may be checked at TEDUH.KPKT.GOV.MY. Where the register and a filing disagree, or where one carries a field the other does not, both are printed above.

Both filed generations print helix2.com.my and eupe.com.my as the project’s official websites. helix2.com.my is unreachable on all three URL forms tried, which is why this page has no floor plan, no site plan, no facility image and no location map.

1. The advertising and sale permit lapsed on 12 September 2026, and 11 units are still unsold

Both filed brochures file the APDL as a placeholder, so the question can only be answered from the register — and the register answers it. It prints 30099-1/09-2026/0675(R)-(S), valid 13 September 2025 to 12 September 2026. The /09-2026/ segment inside the permit string matches the stated end date, which is the internal cross-check this site runs on every permit. The register was read again on 9 October 2026 for this page, and no renewal appears forward. That re-check matters: on another project built the same week the register had quietly renewed the licence forward while the filings still printed the expiring one. A lapse must be verified, not assumed — and here it verified. Meanwhile the developer’s own projects page still files Helix2 under “Open For Sale” and the current filed brochure records 11 units unsold. A lapsed APDL is not a defect in the building. It is a defect in the right to advertise and sell. The building is complete, the CCC is filed and vacant possession was delivered. The honest instruction: ask the developer for the current permit number and its validity dates IN WRITING before you sign anything, and check the number yourself at TEDUH.KPKT.GOV.MY.

2. Foreign buyers — zero of 500 units reach the floor, and nobody anywhere says so

Daerah Petaling is Selangor Zone 1, where the minimum purchase price for a non-Malaysian is RM2,000,000. The dearest unit in the entire filed schedule is RM762,000 — 38.1% of the floor, short by RM1,238,000. The cheapest filed unit, at RM270,000, is 13.5% of it. Units that clear the floor: 0 of 500. Does any source say so? No. Not the developer, not the register, not one of the five portals, not one of the four publishers. Source for the threshold: IQI’s own published guide at iqiglobal.com/blog/buying-land-in-malaysia-for-foreigners/, which gives Selangor strata as “RM1,000,000 to RM2,000,000, depending on zone”, landed as “from RM2,000,000 in main zones”, and adds that thresholds can differ by property type and zone — and which does carry the restriction point. PTG Selangor publishes no reachable circular, and one widely cited third-party page contradicts itself across two of its own pages on Selangor title type and zone mapping. Confirm the current figure with PTG Selangor before relying on it. Two further filed facts, independent of price. (a) There is a filed Sekatan Kepentingan requiring State Authority consent for any transfer, lease or charge — an obstacle that exists whatever the price is. (b) The filed facilities list contains no security item of any kind, in either generation, so a gated-and-guarded condition could not be satisfied here even if the price cleared — and, to the developer’s credit, nobody claims one. And tie this back to the state error. The five sources that place Helix2 in Kuala Lumpur would halve the floor to RM1,000,000 — and even at RM1,000,000, not one of the 500 units gets over the line. The wrong state changes the number and still does not change the answer. It is a strata product, so the landed-title bar does not apply — none of which rescues the price.

3. The price band is clean, and this page credits that as readily as it names an error

RM270,000.00 to RM762,000.00, and the same two figures appear on all four statutory surfaces: the current filed generation, the superseded filed generation, the filed newspaper advertisement, and the public KPKT TEDUH registry band — matching to the sen. There is no splice. On two other projects on this site the register took an old minimum and bolted it onto a new maximum; here the filing discipline is clean, and that is worth saying out loud. But the band contains a trap that runs BACKWARDS from the usual one, and it is a real finding. Normally a marketing “from RM___” figure sits below the filed statutory minimum and cannot be published. Here the opposite is true: the filed minimum of RM270,000 sits RM76,000 BELOW the lowest marketed figure anywhere, which is “from RM346,000”. The explanation is in the filed unit schedule. Type A exists twice at the identical 572 sq ft: A-NPT (Nilai Pasaran Terbuka, open market) and A-RMM (Rumah Mampu Milik, affordable), renamed A-OMU and A-AH in the developer’s own brochure. RM270,000 – 572 sq ft = RM472 per sq ft, against roughly RM542 to RM605 per sq ft implied by the launch-era per-type list. So the filed statutory minimum is an AFFORDABLE-ALLOCATION price, not the open-market entry price. That is the honest way to handle a figure that would otherwise read as the developer overcharging against its own filing. Marked as inference: no filing, no register field and no publication states the open-market minimum. And here is the biggest gap on the whole project: how many of the 500 units are the A-RMM affordable allocation is published NOWHERE — not in either filing, not in any register field, not in the annual report, not by any publisher and not on any portal. Nor are the eligibility terms. That one number governs who your neighbours are, what the resale market looks like, and whether RM270,000 is even available to an open-market buyer. Everything else in circulation, each labelled: “from RM346,000” launch price (a developer-sponsored article, 16 August 2022, and iProperty’s “launch prices”) · RM270,000 to RM540,000 and RM455 to RM604 per sq ft (one portal’s own computation) · sale from RM350,000 and RM292 to RM775 per sq ft (PropertyGuru, listing-derived, October 2026) · current selling RM428,650 to RM555,500 and asking from RM450,000 (iProperty, listing-derived, October 2026) · “about RM550 per sq ft” (The Edge, 11 October 2024) and “from RM550 psf” (The Edge, March 2025) · and a launch-era per-type list from one agent site dated 6 September 2022. None of those is a filed figure and none is this page’s price. The filed band above is.

4. The generation diff is exactly THREE fields, and the chargee runs the OTHER way

The superseded filing and the current filing differ on three fields and on nothing else. (a) Tarikh Dijangka Siap: Julai 2025 to Oct 2025. Neither is the actual vacant possession date of 16 October 2025, though October is right. (b) Bebanan Tanah: CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad to Tiada. Everywhere else on this site the newer generation NAMES a chargee the older one filed as Tiada. Here the charge has been DISCHARGED — which is exactly what you would expect of a project that reached CCC and vacant possession, and it means a buyer completing today is buying out of an unencumbered title position on the developer’s own current filing. A discharge is a finding in the buyer’s favour, and both values are printed rather than reconciled away. (c) Baki Unit Belum Dijual appears only in the newer filing, at Blok A 11 unit. It means units remaining, so 489 of 500 are sold = 97.8%. The APDL placeholder style also differs between the two (xxx xxx against XXXXX-X/XX-XXXX/XXXX (X)), but neither is a real permit, so neither is a field value. Both HIMS path forms are live under the one serial, which is what made this diff available at all.

5. A filed scheme name sitting in the wrong field, and a serial walk that ends where it should

In BOTH filed generations the string Residensi Heliks is printed against the label Nama Pemaju Perumahan — the name of the housing developer field. The scheme name is filed in the developer-name slot. It is worth one line because it is the reverse of a case this site has already filed elsewhere, and it is the fourth distinct filed-heading shape found in this series. The filed newspaper advertisement is the one surface that is headed with the project name correctly rather than hiding it in the developer field. The serial walk. api/projek-swasta/30099-1 is a hit; 30099-2 returns a 404; the record’s own bilanganProjek is 1 and the licensee’s projectCount is 1. Walk and count agree, so there is no dormant permit-less twin and no cancelled-permit near-neighbour to double-count. And the group’s other licensees are NOT this one. A TEDUH search for EUPE returns five licensees (positive control EXSIM returns 16, run the same day): 30099 Eupe PJ South Development · 14163 Eupe Bangsar South Development (JV) · 10559 Eupe Development · 3828 Eupe Kemajuan (55 projects, the Kedah book) · 31345 Eupe Land Development (0 projects). None of the five holds a project called Helix, Heliks or anything resembling it besides 30099-1. The sibling Klang Valley schemes Parc 3 and Est8 sit on a different licensee entirely. Their figures do not appear on this page, and Helix2’s do not appear on theirs.

6. Three GDVs, The Edge contradicts itself, and the arithmetic says which one is real

RM228 million (The Edge, 11 October 2024) · RM274 million (The Edge, March 2025) · RM288 million (klproperty.cc, 18 October 2024). First test: do any of them sit outside the filed band? 500 × RM270,000 = RM135 million and 500 × RM762,000 = RM381 million. All three sit inside, so there is no stale-generation signal here — and this page says so as readily as it names a stale figure elsewhere. Second test, and this is the one that separates them. Both Edge reports also give the price per square foot: “about RM550” and “from RM550 psf”. At RM550 per sq ft across 500 units: RM228m implies an average built-up of 829 sq ft — a near-perfect fit for a schedule whose modal type is 839 sq ft (four of twelve codes) inside a 572 to 1,065 range. Internally consistent. RM274m implies 996 sq ft — which would need almost the whole tower at the filed ceiling. Implausible. RM288m implies 1,047 sq ft — i.e. every unit at or above type E. Impossible against the filed schedule. So The Edge’s own RM228 million is the only figure that reconciles with the filed built-ups and the publisher’s own price per square foot. RM288m looks like a transposition of 228; RM274m is a later restatement by the same publisher that it never reconciled with its own earlier figure. All three are carried here with their dates, and the arithmetic is shown rather than asserted. For completeness, two development values that are NOT prices: the land cost RM32.33 million for 11,551 m² = RM260 per sq ft of land (2018), and the main building contract RM119.61 million = RM239,220 per unit.

7. Density 175.2 units per acre — and for once there was only ONE candidate denominator

500 units – 2.854 acres = 175.2 units per acre. Our arithmetic, on a land area this page can actually defend. The denominator and where it came from. 11,551 square metres, stated in Eupe Corporation Berhad’s own Bursa Malaysia announcement of the acquisition, filed 30 November 2018, and reported identically on BOTH of The Edge Communications’ domains, each printing “11,551 sqm” in square metres. 11,551 m² = 124,331 sq ft = 2.854 acres. iProperty independently prints 2.85 acres, which is exactly that conversion. Label it honestly: a Bursa-announced land area corroborated by one portal. It is NOT a filed figure. Keluasan Tanah is NOT PRINTED in either filed generation, and the register’s keluasan reads 0 mps on both the summary and the component row — which is the register’s ordinary “not filed” value, and not the square-metre built-up trap, because 0 echoes no built-up in the filed schedule. Why this page trusts it. (a) One publisher, one story, ONE land area — the exact counter-case to another project on this site where the same publisher rendered one article on two domains with three different land areas. (b) It survives the net-to-gross check: ~415,000 sq ft of saleable floor on 124,331 sq ft is a net plot ratio of about 3.3, gross nearer 5 to 6 with the podium and the car park block — high but entirely ordinary for a commercial-titled MBPJ arterial plot, and a 34-storey tower with a 12-storey car park beside it is physically consistent with 2.85 acres. (c) It survives the land price check: RM260 per sq ft of land in 2018 against a filed selling band of RM472 to RM715 per sq ft of built-up. (d) No source anywhere prints any other land area — no township acreage, no park figure, no greenery percentage, no gross floor area. After seven denominator traps elsewhere in this series, this is the first project with exactly one candidate denominator, and it holds up. It is owed an explanation, and that is it. And the figure itself deserves saying out loud: 175 units per acre is HIGH. A 34-storey, 500-unit tower with 15 units per floor on a single residential core is a dense product. The developer makes no low-density claim, which is honest of it. Ask about lift provision: the only figure anywhere is one portal’s unfiled “3+1”.

8. GreenRE — the certification is confirmed, the LEVEL is not, and how that was established matters

What the public GreenRE register independently confirms, to the correct licensee: every tier page carries an unheaded certification-entry list above the tier table, and that list holds Residensi Heliks · PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATION · RES v3.2 · 24 February 2023 · Eupe PJ South Development Sdn Bhd. So: a certification exists; it is on the RESIDENTIAL tool, so it IS a rating for the homes; it is PROVISIONAL; it is dated; and it is attached to the right licensee. What the register does NOT print is a rating level. How the level was tested, tier by tier. Platinum: 95 rows returned, NOT truncated, last row complete — a GENUINE CLEAN NEGATIVE. Gold (130 rows), Silver (141) and Bronze (~400) all came back truncated, so for those three the only honest statement is “no entry in the reachable portion”, which is not a negative. Saying which of those two things each tier is, is the point. Where “Gold” comes from: the developer’s own FY2026 annual report (“provisional Gold GreenRE certification”) and the awards project spotlight, which is developer-supplied copy. Nobody else. So this page publishes it as a DEVELOPER CLAIM, not a register fact, and writes provisional, never certified. Provisional is not certified. Provisional is awarded at design stage. This project reached CCC on 13 October 2025, so the meaningful live question is whether the provisional has been converted to FINAL — and no final row for Residensi Heliks is reachable in any of the four tiers. The provisional is dated 24 February 2023 and is therefore nearly four years old. Rows that are NOT this project, and are refused: Aria · Eupe Corporation Berhad · PLATINUM · 27 May 2025 · NRB v3.2 — a different project AND the NON-RESIDENTIAL tool, so it is not a rating for any home. The word Platinum does not belong anywhere near Helix2. Also refused: Parc 3 @ KL South (FINAL, RES v3.1, a different licensee), Residensi Estetik 8 (a different licensee), Centennial ParcVista (a different licensee in a different state, matched only on the substring “Parc”), and a 2010 LEED Silver on a Kedah project. No Helix or Heliks row exists in any of the four tier tables, so there was no name-collision decoy to refuse — an unusually clean search. GBI: the Green Building Index directory 404s and its successor host is blocked here. INCONCLUSIVE, never a negative — and nobody claims GBI for this project, so there is no unverified claim to carry.

9. Awards — four, all separable, and each described as what it actually is

Attributable to Helix2, under the developer’s own “Helix2 Development Awards” heading: PropertyGuru Asia Property Awards 2024 — Best Mid End Condo Development (Asia) · PropertyGuru Asia Awards Malaysia 2024 — Best Mid-End High-Rise Development (Central). The awards spotlight describes the first as won at the 11th PropertyGuru Asia Property Awards (Malaysia) and gives no year; the developer’s own page says 2024. Note also that the developer’s project page and its awards page disagree on one award’s name, hyphenated or not. Trivial, but quoted once. Plus, from the Sustainability section of the same page: ESG Business Awards 2025 — Green Building Award. One caveat printed rather than hidden: the image for that award on the developer’s own site is FILENAMED TO THE PARENT COMPANY, with no project string in it — so attribution for Helix2 rests on page placement, not on the filename, and this page phrases it as an award LISTED BY THE DEVELOPER on the Helix2 project page. The two PropertyGuru awards are different: the awards page attributes those under an explicit Helix2 heading. And CIDB QLASSIC 86% — which is a WORKMANSHIP ASSESSMENT, not a design award. The FY2026 annual report confirms it as “a QLASSIC score of 86 per cent for construction quality”. The siblings’ scores stay off this page, and Helix2’s does not migrate to theirs. One more line worth a reader’s attention: two of the three property awards are PropertyGuru’s, and PropertyGuru and iProperty are one group — which is also two of the five main portal data sources used for this project. Not a disqualification, but worth knowing when the same brand supplies both the accolade and the listing data. Refused outright: every “award-winning” formulation that leans on the 14 corporate Eupe entries (Top 30 Developers, market-capitalisation rankings, enterprise awards, a landscape architecture award) or on the siblings’ awards. Helix2 has no FIABCI award, no iProperty Development Excellence Award, no Edge award and no Malaysia Property Award. Those belong to other projects.

10. Where the sources disagree — the ledger, and which one this page follows

Thirty contradictions were logged on this project. These are the ones that change an answer. Storeys 33 against 34 — the register says 34 and so do the contractor, the Bursa contract report, mybina and The Edge’s March 2025 article; 33 comes from The Edge in October 2024, StarProperty, klproperty.cc, iProperty and the awards spotlight. The Edge contradicts itself five months apart. The filed floor labels run A-GF to A-33 = 34 levels. THE REGISTER GOVERNS. Street: Jalan PJS 5/27 against Jalan PJS 5/30 — 5/27 from the main contractor, which also gives the fullest address anywhere; 5/30 from EdgeProp record 52052, the sponsored article and one agent site. No filing gives a street address at all. UNRESOLVED, and both are printed. Neighbourhood: Taman Desaria against Taman Medan, Kampung Ghandi — iProperty and PropertyGuru file it under the first; EdgeProp 52052 gives the second; the filed newspaper advertisement says only “PJ Selatan”. UNRESOLVED. This page uses PJS 5, Petaling Jaya with the register coordinates. Completion: eight distinct dates across eleven sources — February 2025 (the contractor’s programme), Julai 2025 (the superseded filing and the newspaper advertisement), “3Q2025” (the developer’s own media index), Oct 2025 (the current filing), “4Q2025” and October 2025 (four press and trade sources), 13 October 2025 (filed CCC), 16 October 2025 (filed vacant possession), plus two portal errors — “Completed in 2022”, which is the LAUNCH year, and “Completion year 2026”, which matches nothing. THE FILED VACANT POSSESSION DATE OF 16 OCTOBER 2025 GOVERNS, and because there is no approved extension there is no second date to measure against. The developer’s own two surfaces still disagree with each other: its media index says 3Q2025 while its annual report and current filing say October, which is 4Q. Built-up ceiling: 1,065 against 1,054 sq ft — the filed schedule has E = 1,065 and F = 1,054; The Edge (March 2025) takes F as the ceiling. Every other source and both filings say 1,065. THE FILING GOVERNS. And the one inside a single document: the developer’s own Simplified Brochure contradicts itself. Its electrical and sanitary schedule matches the filing exactly on all six built-ups, while its marketing table puts C1 at 1,065 sq ft against the filed 883. WHICH TO TRUST: THE SANITARY AND ELECTRICAL SCHEDULE, NEVER THE MARKETING TABLE. Also logged, and resolved the same way: the licence suffix (A) in the register against (N) on all three filed surfaces · an (A)/(N) permit twin on identical dates in the permit history · kps against sf inside one filed document · take-up at 95% / 97% / 97.2% / 97.8% (the filing’s 11-unit remainder is the only dated statutory figure) · Berfasa (phased) on a one-phase development · EdgeProp’s two records for one project naming two different companies, the licensee on one and the listed parent on the other · and iProperty contradicting itself on one page, giving “Completed in 2022” and “expected to be completed in Q4 2025”.

11. What this page does not publish, and why

Louis sells under a registered estate agency, and holds developer material that is not his to publish. So no figure describing a discount, a rebate, a nett price, a promotion of any kind, a freebie, an incentive, a Bumiputera entitlement percentage, an agency commission, a leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate, or a yield or return projection appears anywhere on this page. Those are the only places those words appear here, and they appear only to tell you they are excluded. What IS published, and what it is: the filed statutory Unit Selling Price band from the legally filed advertisement particulars, which is the SPA price range, and the public KPKT TEDUH registry band. On this project those two agree to the sen on both filed generations, so nothing had to be spliced or withheld. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and a real figure for a real unit comes from the price list and the Schedule H SPA at the sales gallery. And one thing that normally has to be withheld does not exist here: neither filed generation prints a Diskaun Bumiputera field at all — confirmed on a field-by-field read of both. So on this project there is nothing to withhold on that ground, which is a cleaner answer than a generic disclaimer. On Bumiputera matters generally this page will state that a field exists; it will never state a value.

12. Not published by anyone, therefore not on this page

Filed-block gaps — each one a NOT PRINTED, not a research failure: Keluasan Tanah (absent from both generations and the newspaper advertisement; register keluasan: 0 mps) · Bilangan Tingkat (absent from all three filed surfaces; only the floor labels) · Tempat Letak Kereta (absent from all three filed surfaces AND from the register) · Jadual G / Jadual H (absent from all three filed surfaces; the register alone says Schedule H) · lot or PT number (nowhere — the Bursa announcement names no lot and the contractor names a street) · mukim · the local authority and the tenure in the register (both absent; both come only from the filings) · any English-language column in either filed brochure (Malay only) · per-type bedroom and bathroom counts · and no Diskaun Bumiputera field in either generation. Material facts nobody publishes at all: how many of the 500 units are the A-RMM affordable allocation, and on what eligibility terms — the single biggest gap on this project · the open-market minimum price · what COMMERCIAL land title means here for assessment, quit rent, water and electricity tariffs — no source addresses it · a measured distance or walk time to ANY rail station, by anyone · whether the development is gated and guarded (no filed security item, no developer claim, no portal tag) · whether the APDL has been renewed since 12 September 2026, and on what terms the 11 unsold units are being offered · whether the GreenRE provisional has been converted to FINAL since the October 2025 CCC · the exact percentage of Eupe PJ South Development Sdn Bhd held by Eupe Corporation Berhad (two sources say wholly-owned; no reachable structure chart confirms a figure) · gross floor area, plot ratio and the approved density · the sinking fund contribution (only the maintenance rate exists, and it is a portal figure) · strata title issuance status since vacant possession · management corporation or JMB formation, handover of common property and the first AGM · the defect liability period expiry (on a standard Schedule H 24-month period from the filed 16 October 2025 the window would close around 16 October 2027, but no source states it) · the number of lifts in any filing · the engineers, quantity surveyor, landscape architect and interior designer (each exists as one named firm on a trade site and every name is behind a paywall) · and anything at all from helix2.com.my, the official project website printed in the filings, which is unreachable on three URL forms. This is the list Louis will go and ask the developer for. It is not filler.

13. Registries checked that hold nothing — stated precisely, because an inert registry is never a negative

ehartanah.lphs.gov.my/projects?search= is INERT. It carries the search term into every one of its own pagination links and still returns the default unfiltered listing of sixteen “Projek hartanah terkini”. Absence there is never a negative, and this page says so in those words. kuotalphs.selangor.gov.my is also effectively inert for this purpose. Its reachable static Senarai Projek is only 126 entries and the portal is per-record with no search, so a non-match is “no entry in a 126-row static list”, not a register-wide negative. www.lphs.gov.my/search?q= genuinely filters — the positive control q=perumahan returns 57 results while q=Heliks and q=Eupe each return zero. But that portal indexes news and activity content, not a project register, so the zero is a real zero on an index that would never have carried this project. It is worthless as a register negative, and printing it as one would be dishonest. spem.lphs.gov.my is login-only with no public search, and lphs.selangor.gov.my has a broken TLS certificate. The practical consequence: the KPKT TEDUH register and the two filed HIMS generations were the entire record for this project, and this page does not pretend otherwise.

Questions a buyer actually asks about Helix2 @ PJ South

Also worth seeing — and one of them is by the same group

Published 9 October 2026 · Last verified 9 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register record 30099-1, both filed HIMS advertisement generations, the filed newspaper advertisement, the GreenRE public register (all four tiers) and the developer’s own site and FY2026 annual report. Marketing information, not an offer. Statutory particulars can change without notice — verify the current licence, permit and price at TEDUH.KPKT.GOV.MY and in the Schedule H SPA before you commit.