Laurel Residence @ Bangsar South — Kerinchi, Kuala Lumpur
1,260 units in two 42-storey towers, filed as two components of 630 units each, both Pangsapuri Suite, both sold on Schedule H. Registered with the government as RESIDENSI LAUREL, BANGSAR SELATAN — a name no marketing source uses. Licensed developer SUNNY UPTOWN SDN BHD (629260-H), licence 10697/12-2028/1464(A), phase 10697-4. Completed: CCC 30 October 2024, vacant possession 17 December 2024.
HAK MILIK SEMENTARADensity CANNOT be computed — nobody publishes a land area1,260 units · 2 × 42 storeys · DBKL · Jadual HI reply with the two filed KPKT advertisement files and the government register record for phase 10697-4, not a brochure summary.
10697-4 — where the CCC date, the vacant possession date and the approved extension all come from
Laurel Residence @ Bangsar South at a glance
Every row carries the document that prints it. Where nothing was printed — the land area, the car park, the street address, the unit mix — the row says so rather than filling the gap. On this project the good news is in the dates and the work is in the blanks.
- Registered scheme name
- RESIDENSI LAUREL, BANGSAR SELATAN
“nama”: “RESIDENSI LAUREL, BANGSAR SELATAN”in the KPKT register for phase10697-4, and RESIDENSI LAUREL BANGSAR SELATAN as the page heading of the filed advertisement brochure and the headline of the filed newspaper advertisement. Not one marketing source uses it. The developer markets Laurel Residence; its own township site map inside its own e-brochure adds a third form, Laurel Residences, plural. - Licensed developer
- SUNNY UPTOWN SDN BHD, company no. 629260-HPrinted in the filed newspaper advertisement — the only source anywhere that prints the registration number — and in the register as SUNNY UPTOWN SDN. BHD., developer code 10697. The filed advertisement brochure names no developer at all, and nor does either e-brochure: they print an address and a licence number and never a name. Every marketing source says “UOA Group” or “UOA Development Bhd” instead.
- Developer’s licence
- 10697/12-2028/1464(A) — valid 16/12/2023 – 15/12/2028, LIVEFiled brochure, filed newspaper advertisement and the register all agree. Register status for the licensee: 4 projects, projek_sakit_count 0, projek_terbengkalai_count 0 — no sick project, no abandoned project, and all four phases now Siap Dengan CCC.
- Advertising & sale permit (APDL)
- ALL THREE FILED PERMITS HAVE EXPIREDLatest:
10697-4/12-2024/1774(R)-(S), valid 16/12/2023 – 15/12/2024, marked Tamat. Two earlier permits expired 15/12/2023. The register marks all three is_latest: false. A live developer’s licence is not a live advertising permit — see the register section for what each one is and why the difference matters while about 349 units were unsold. - Completion — what actually happened
- CCC 30 October 2024 · vacant possession 17 December 2024Register, phase
10697-4: ccc: 30/10/2024 on both component rows, vp: 17/12/2024, peratus: 100.00, status Siap Dengan CCC. Every marketing surface still prints December 2025. - The approved extension — and why it is good news here
- +12 months approved, and the building finished inside the ORIGINAL deadlineRegister: pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 12 Bulan, construction period 36 → 48 months, contractual vacant possession 16 Mar 2025 → 16 Mar 2026. Filed CCC 30 Oct 2024. That is about three months inside the original deadline and fifteen inside the extended one — our arithmetic on filed dates. UOA Limited’s Annual Report 2024: “Laurel Residence was completed at the end of FY2024, ahead of its scheduled completion date.” An approved extension is not by itself evidence of a delay.
- Total units
- 1,260Jumlah Unit: 1,260 in both filed KPKT files; unitSummary.unit: 1260 in the register, as two component rows of 630; “a total of 1,260 units” in UOA Limited’s Annual Reports 2022 and 2024; and the same figure on both developer websites and both portals. Eight sources, no disagreement.
- Blocks and storeys
- Two blocks · 42 storeys eachBil Tingkat Pemajuan: 42 (filed brochure), tingkat: “42” on both register components, “2 blocks of 42-storey residential towers” (Annual Reports 2022 and 2024). The filed brochure never states a block count — Jumlah Blok is not a field it prints; two blocks is inferred from its per-block fields Baki Unit Terkini Blok A / Blok B and from the register’s two component rows. One agent calls them Tower A and Tower B.
- Built form, as filed
- Pangsapuri Suite — both componentsJenis Pembangunan: Pangsapuri Suite in both filed KPKT files, and “jenis”: “Pangsapuri Suite” on both register component rows. Marketed as “Suite Apartment” by the developer; one portal files it as “Condominium” and “serviced residence” on the same page. No filing prints a land-use category at all.
- Sale contract
- Jadual H (Schedule H)pjb.jenis: Jadual H in the register. So all 1,260 units are HDA-licensed strata title housing accommodation, with statutory delivery periods and statutory liquidated damages. And unlike several towers on this site, there is no non-HDA parcel here at all: the register lists exactly two rows of 630 Pangsapuri Suite units and nothing else — no office, no SOFO, no SOHO, no retail, no shop, no hotel row. 630 + 630 = 1,260, with nothing left over.
- Tenure
- Leasehold 99 years, expiring 30 June 2119Jenis Pegangan Tanah: Pajakan 99 tahun; Tarikh Tamat Tempoh Pajakan: 30/06/2119 — both filed KPKT files. About 93 years unexpired as at October 2026, our arithmetic. No source gives the lease commencement date, the head-lease terms or the premium basis for an extension.
- Title status, as filed
HAK MILIK SEMENTARA— provisional titlePrinted in the filed newspaper advertisement. Whether final title and strata titles have issued since the October 2024 CCC is published by nobody. Both filed files also print Bebanan Tanah: Tiada and Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada; the developer’s own block agrees with “Land Encumbrance: None” — which also means no chargee bank is named anywhere.- Approving authority
- Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) — and two plan referencesPihak Berkuasa (PBT) yang meluluskan Pelan Bangunan: Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur, in both filed files and again in the developer’s own block. But the plan numbers differ: filed
BP S1 OSC 2024 0776 (24)versus the developer’s own publishedBP S1 OSC 2021 1285. Both are DBKL references, so the Federal Territory location is proved twice over — but nobody reconciles them. Register: daerah Kuala Lumpur, negeri Wp Kuala Lumpur. - Registered coordinates
- 3.109715, 101.664568Filed in the KPKT register for
10697-4. This is the pin on the map below. No street address is filed by anyone — see the location section. - Land area
- NOT PRINTED by anyone with authorityAbsent from the filed brochure, the filed newspaper advertisement, the register (the component rows carry “keluasan”: “0”), the developer’s own statutory block, both e-brochures and three UOA Limited annual reports. Consequence: density cannot be computed, and this page prints no density figure. The only land figure in existence is one portal’s unsourced “2.1 acres”.
- Filed statutory price range
- RM517,000 – RM1,028,300 — Blok A and Blok B alikeHarga Min / Mak Blok A and Blok B, from the filed KPKT advertisement brochure and the filed newspaper advertisement under permit
1774. Two other bands are also published and neither agrees: the developer’s own RM450,000 – RM899,300 (under the expired 2021 permit, still live on its sites today) and the KPKT registry’s RM450,000 – RM1,028,300, which is a splice of the other two and matches no filed advertisement. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. - Foreign buyer eligibility
- The answer flips by sourceKuala Lumpur / Federal Territory floor: RM1,000,000 per unit with State Authority consent. The filed statutory maximum RM1,028,300 clears it by RM28,300; the developer’s own published maximum RM899,300 does not, and neither portal’s does. And no source publishes the unit mix by type, so the size of the eligible tier is unknown. See the FAQ.
- Unit types
- Five filed (A, B, C, D, E) — six marketed (adds D1)Filed schedule: A 495, B 548, C 590, D 903, E 853 sq ft, with bedrooms 1+1 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 3 and bathrooms 1 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 2. Type D1 is in the developer’s CMS and in both e-brochures and is absent from the filed schedule; no published source gives its size. The register files keluasan as
0, so it publishes no unit areas at all. - Car park
- NOT PRINTED in any filingTempat Letak Kereta is absent from both filed KPKT files, the register has no such field, and neither developer website nor either e-brochure states a count, ratio or level. One agent’s site says “1 floating bay per unit, not allocated” — a materially important term with no primary support. Confirm it in the SPA and the strata documents.
- Take-up, as last filed
- About 349 of 1,260 unsold — and the figure may be two years staleFiled brochure: Baki Unit Terkini Blok A 173 + Blok B 176 = 349. A KPKT panel dated 28 August 2026, quoted by one portal, says “911 of 1260 units sold” — and 1,260 − 349 = 911 exactly (our arithmetic). But the brochure figure was filed in October 2024, so either nothing was registered in 22 months or the register is echoing the 2024 filing. No source says which.
- Service charge
- No authoritative figure existsBoth portals carry RM0.33 psf per month including sinking fund, in near-identical wording. No filing and no developer source publishes a service charge at all, so treat that figure as a portal and agent figure and get the management corporation’s own current schedule.
- Awards and green certification
- No award — but a GreenRE Bronze certification, FINALAll six awards on the developer’s awards page are corporate — UOA Development Bhd or UOA REIT — and none names a project or the licensee. Both e-brochures claim an “Award-Winning 6 Acre Park” and an “Award-Winning Lifestyle Hub” with no body and no year, and both describe township assets, not Laurel. Green is different, and the register is positive: the GreenRE public register carries a row reading “Laurel Residence, Bangsar South”, developer Sunny Uptown Sdn Bhd — the licensee itself, matching the filing exactly — at Bronze, FINAL certification, dated 18 August 2025 (GreenRE Bronze register, read 8 October 2026). The developer claims it nowhere — not on either website, not in either e-brochure. It is a certification, not an award, and it is Bronze, not Gold: the sibling Duo Tower’s GreenRE Gold is PROVISIONAL, belongs to Duo Tower and to different licensees, and does not transfer here.
Jump to what you came for
This page is organised the way a buyer actually asks — and it starts with the one thing on this project that is unambiguously good news.
Eight things about Laurel Residence that only the filed record tells you
Four of these are good news and four are work to be done. That mix is the point: this page carries the whole filed record, which on this project happens to flatter the developer on delivery and leave real questions open on title, permits and parking.
A 12-month extension was approved — and the building beat the original deadline
The register records pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya with 12 extra months approved, moving contractual vacant possession from 16 Mar 2025 to 16 Mar 2026. Filed CCC: 30 Oct 2024. Filed vacant possession: 17 Dec 2024. About three months inside the ORIGINAL date. The parent’s own annual report says “ahead of its scheduled completion date”. An approved extension is not by itself evidence of a delay — and this is the page that proves it.
All three advertising permits have expired, with units still unsold
The developer’s licence runs to 15 December 2028 and is live. The APDL — a different, shorter permit that authorises advertising and selling — has lapsed on every one of its three generations, the latest on 15 December 2024. About 349 of 1,260 units were recorded unsold. Ordinary for a completed building; worth knowing all the same.
Three filed price bands, and the registry’s is a splice
Current filed statutory RM517,000 – RM1,028,300. The developer’s own published band, under an expired permit and still live on its sites: RM450,000 – RM899,300. The KPKT registry: RM450,000 – RM1,028,300 — the old permit’s minimum spliced to the new permit’s maximum, matching no filed advertisement. And the spliced one is what the portals scrape. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
For a foreign buyer the answer changes with the source
The filed maximum RM1,028,300 clears the Kuala Lumpur RM1,000,000 floor by RM28,300. The developer’s own published maximum RM899,300 does not, and neither portal’s does. Nobody publishes the unit mix, so the size of the eligible tier is unknown. A foreign buyer cannot get this answer from the marketing material.
The registered name is Malay, and a near-identical sibling sits 67 m away
Registered: RESIDENSI LAUREL, BANGSAR SELATAN. Marketed: Laurel Residence, and Laurel Residences on the developer’s own site map. Licence 10697 carries four phases, and 10697-3 — Residensi Laman Permai, same licensee, same filed Pangsapuri Suite type, 678 units, 40 storeys — sits about 67 m away by filed coordinates (our arithmetic). That is the real confusion risk.
Two DBKL plan approvals, unreconciled
Filed: BP S1 OSC 2024 0776 (24). The developer’s own live statutory block: BP S1 OSC 2021 1285. Both DBKL, so the Federal Territory location is double-proved — but no source says what changed, and a buyer asking which plan their unit was built to has no published answer.
Provisional title at the time of the filed advertisement
The filed newspaper advertisement prints HAK MILIK SEMENTARA. The CCC came in October 2024, so this is precisely when final title and strata title issuance would move — and no source publishes whether it has. That is a question for a title search, and it matters to the buyer of a completed unit.
Density cannot be computed, and two tempting denominators are wrong
No filing, register field, developer page, e-brochure or annual report publishes a land area. So no density figure appears on this page. Do not use the “6 Acre Park” — a township park about 120 m off site — and never use the township, which contains a dozen other UOA buildings. Both would flatter the number by a wide margin.
What is actually built, and the dated record behind it
The statistics band carries only figures a filing, the government register or a named source published — and there is deliberately no density tile, because no land area exists to compute one from. The facilities columns keep the filed legend, the agent’s level-by-level transcription and the unsupported extras strictly apart, because only the first of the three has a government document behind it.
Facilities — the filed legend, the agent’s levels, and the extras nobody supports
Read the first column as the only government-sourced facility list for this project. The filed PELAN FASILITI legend is numbered 1–24, but the PDF’s text layer scrambles the numbering — the numbers extract out of order and the names as a separate run — so the number-to-name pairing could not be recovered and is not published here, and the plan prints no level. Several labels are mangled and are marked as such. The second and third columns are an agent’s reading of the same graphic, and the split between Level 5 and the ground floor is the agent’s, not the filing’s.
FILED — the PELAN FASILITI and PELAN TINGKAT BAWAH legend
- Kawasan Fungsi Pra
- Dewan Serbaguna — multipurpose hall
- Surau
- Tandas — washrooms
- Taska — childcare centre
- Bilik Fungsi 1
- Bilik Fungsi 2
- Ruang Rehat Lobi — lobby lounge
- Pejabat Pengurusan — management office
- Pintu Masuk Besar — grand entrance
- Pondok Pengawal — guard house
- Bilik Surat — mail room
- Alcove
- Lobi — lobby
- Lokasi Drop — drop-off
- Bilik Permainan — games room
- Ruang Rehat Kolam Renang — pool lounge
- Kawasan Santai In-Pool — in-pool loungers
- Taman Komuniti — community garden
- Kawasan Berbeku — reads as a mangled BBQ area
- Tempat Makan Kawasan Luar — alfresco dining
- Deck Yoga — yoga deck
- Ruang Terbuka — open lounge
- Dek Sun — sun deck
- Taman Zen — Zen garden
- Bangku Taman — garden benches
- Jakuzi — jacuzzi / hydrotherapy
- Kawasan Zen — Zen enclave
- Taman Permainan Kanak-Kanak — kids playground
- Dek Splash — splash deck
- Kolam Renang Splash — splash pool
- Taman Kolam Renang — garden pool
- Gimnasium — gymnasium
- Kawasan Pancuran Mandian — shower area
- Damai Aktif · Lain-lain · Rehat · Daya — four labels the PDF text layer mangles beyond reading
AGENT’S TRANSCRIPTION — “Level 5”
- Garden Pool
- In-Pool Loungers
- Splash Pool & Splash Deck
- Hydrotherapy Spa
- Sun Deck
- Pool Lounge
- Shower Area
- Zen Garden
- Zen Enclave
- Zen Yoga Deck
- Reflexology Path — the one item with no counterpart in the filed legend
- Garden Benches
- Gymnasium
- Community Hangout Pavilion
- BBQ Pit
- Dining Alfresco
- Games Room
- Kids Playground
- Open Lounge
- Co-Working Lounge — the one facility the developer itself places on Level 5
- Function Rooms
AGENT’S TRANSCRIPTION — ground floor
- Grand Entrance & Guard House
- Drop-Off Area
- Grand Lobby & Lobby Lounge
- Mail Rooms
- Multipurpose Hall
- Taska — childcare centre
- Surau
- Management Office
NAMED BUT UNSUPPORTED, OR NOT THIS PROJECT’S
- Covered link bridge and covered link walkway — both e-brochures only, with no destination stated. This matters: the agent’s Kerinchi LRT walking claim depends on this bridge, and the developer never says where it goes.
- Shuttle bus service — both e-brochures only. No route, no destination, no frequency, no commitment. Treat it as a township amenity claim, not a project facility.
- Connexion Conference & Event Centre (CCEC) — named in the e-brochures and a separate township building, not a Laurel facility.
- Wading Pool and Nursery — one portal only, inside a generic eight-item facility-tag set. Nursery is plausibly its rendering of the filed Taska; Wading Pool appears in no other source at all.
- “Everyday Conveniences” — the developer’s own section on
uoaproperty.com, consisting of eight icons with no text labels and no alt text. Eight facilities communicated entirely as unlabelled pictures. - Nothing is marked “space only” by any source — a genuinely clean result, and worth stating.
The dated record — and the four completion stories
1774(R)-(S), marked Tamat. No live permit on record since.Five unit types in the filing, six in the marketing — shown as they are, not reduced to one set
The filed statutory unit schedule in the KPKT advertisement brochure gives five types. The developer’s own content management system carries six titled floor plans, and Type D1 is the only type code named in either e-brochure — which gives no size for it. Bedroom and bathroom counts come from the filing and from one agent’s site, and they agree; the developer publishes no bathroom count anywhere. The government register files keluasan as 0 on both component rows, so it publishes no unit areas at all. No square-metre figure is published by anyone and none is converted here. One floor plan is reproduced below — Type A — because it is the only one already verified into this site’s library with a CMS title naming both project and type.
FILED — Type A · 495 sq ft · 1 + 1 bedrooms · 1 bathroom
The smallest filed type and the floor plan reproduced here. The 1 + 1 notation is the filing’s own and denotes a study or utility room; it is not a dual key, and no source claims one anywhere on this project. The register’s first component row prints “bilik”: “1, 2, 3” and “tandas”: “1, 2”, consistent with one to three bedrooms across the scheme — while its second 630-unit row prints “bilik”: 0 and “tandas”: 0, so the register is incomplete on its own second block.
Ask for the Type A filed scheduleFILED — Type B · 548 sq ft · 2 bedrooms · 1 bathroom
A two-bedroom, one-bathroom plan. Bedroom and bathroom counts for every type come from the filing and from one agent’s site — and the two agree exactly, which is the strongest cross-check available on this project’s layouts. The developer itself publishes no bathroom count for any type, anywhere.
Ask for the Type B planFILED — Type C · 590 sq ft · 2 bedrooms · 1 bathroom
The larger two-bedroom plan. How many of the 1,260 units are Type C — or Type A, B, D, D1 or E — is published by nobody: not the filing, not the register, not the developer, not either portal. That blank has a direct consequence for foreign buyers, because it means the number of units in the tier that clears the RM1,000,000 floor is unknown.
Ask for the Type C planFILED — Type D · 903 sq ft · 3 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms
The largest filed type, and the one that carries the foreign-buyer question. On the current filed statutory band RM517,000 – RM1,028,300, the top of the range clears the Kuala Lumpur RM1,000,000 floor by RM28,300 — and by elimination the units at that end of the band are the 903 sq ft tier, which is our elimination and not a published statement. On the developer’s own published band, RM450,000 – RM899,300, nothing in the project reaches the floor at all. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Ask about the 903 sq ft tierFILED — Type E · 853 sq ft · 3 bedrooms · 2 bathrooms
The second three-bedroom plan. Note that nobody maps any type to a block. The filed Harga Min and Harga Mak are identical for Blok A and Blok B, which hints that the two towers carry the same mix — but no source states it, and for two separate 630-unit towers an identical price band is itself notable.
Ask for the Type E planMARKETED ONLY — Type D1 · size NOT PUBLISHED
This is the sharpest edge of the layout record. The filed schedule has five types. The developer’s CMS has six, confirmed by six CMS-titled floor-plan images, and D1 is the single type code either e-brochure names — while neither gives its size. Only one agent’s site assigns D1 a built-up, 903 sq ft, the same as Type D, and the filed schedule does not support it. So this page treats D1’s size as unpublished. If you are being offered a D1, ask for the filed schedule and the strata plan and check the built-up on the SPA itself.
Ask what Type D1 actually isCar park is NOT PRINTED in any filing — Tempat Letak Kereta is absent from the filed brochure and the filed newspaper advertisement, the register has no such field, and neither developer website nor either e-brochure states a count, a ratio or a level. One agent’s site says “1 floating bay per unit, not allocated” and adds that the bay is “not tied to a particular lot number”; that is a materially important term resting on one page with no primary support and it must be confirmed in the SPA, the strata plan and the management corporation’s by-laws. The filed brochure’s Penghuraian Spesifikasi (SPA) table heads are also on record — reinforced concrete foundation, structure, walls and roof slab, floor and wall finishes, doors, aluminium-framed and sliding windows, sanitary fittings, electrical fittings and additional fixtures — but the PDF’s text layer does not carry the material values against them legibly, so no tile, timber, brand or model is recorded on this page. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Seven images, with the grade of each one stated — and four of them are dated photographs
20241211_, six weeks after the filed CCC of 30 October 2024. Not an artist’s impression — which is rare and worth having. But its CMS title, alt text and caption are all empty, so the subject of this individual frame is not established and this page does not guess at it.
Laurel Residence FP Type A-01, naming both the project and the unit type. The six floor plans are the only images on the developer’s site that carry CMS titles at all. The 1 + 1 notation is the filing’s own and denotes a study or utility room, not a dual key.uoa.com.my — so this subject is confirmed, not inferred. Note what it does and does not do: it names places, and it prints no distance to any of them. Original file is small (708 × 613), so read it as orientation, not as a survey.The grading here is unusually mixed and the difference is worth understanding. Three images are subject-confirmed: the banner (CMS title names the project), the Type A floor plan (CMS title names project and unit type) and the location map (captioned “Location Map” in the developer’s own page HTML). The other four are dated photographs of the finished building — their 20241211_ upload prefix places the shoot on 11 December 2024, six weeks after the filed CCC of 30 October 2024 — and that is genuinely valuable, because both e-brochures carry the standard line “All illustrations shown are artist’s impressions and for reference only” and this shoot is not that. But their CMS title, alt text and caption are all empty, as they are for all fourteen frames of that shoot, so the subject of each individual frame is not established and this page numbers them rather than naming a facade, a pool, a lobby or a view. Verification method: the developer’s media records were read through its own WordPress REST API with a 404 negative control run first to prove the host does not answer a missing file with its HTML shell. That control matters here more than usual, because uoaproperty.com serves every UOA brand from one upload tree and the sibling Goodwood project lives in the same folder — so no image on this page was picked by filename alone; each was matched on the string LAUREL or Laurel-Residence and cross-checked against the Laurel record returned by the developer’s own project endpoint. Deliberately excluded: a 450 × 301 thumbnail, too small to publish, and the remaining untitled frames of the same shoot.
Kerinchi, Bangsar South, Kuala Lumpur — the filed proof of jurisdiction, and the distances nobody prints
The pin below is the registered coordinate from the KPKT project record for phase 10697-4, not a guess — because no filing, no register field, no developer page, no e-brochure and no portal publishes a street address for this project at all. Jurisdiction, by contrast, is settled: two DBKL building-plan references and the register’s own negeri field put Laurel inside the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur.
There is no project site address in either filed KPKT file. The only address in the filed brochure is the developer’s, printed under the label Alamat Pemaju: UOA Corporate Tower, Lobby A, Avenue 10, The Vertical, Bangsar South City, No. 8, Jalan Kerinchi, 59200 Kuala Lumpur. Marketing is no better — both developer websites give only “Bangsar South”, both e-brochures give only the developer’s address, one agent states outright that no street address is given and places the project “on the southern side of the township near Pantai Hillpark”, and one portal gives only “Kerinchi (Bangsar South), Kuala Lumpur”. The only road name attached to this project by any source is Jalan Pantai Permai, and it appears solely as an unexplained header on the filed floor-plan sheets — alongside the header Nexus, which is a separate UOA development. This page therefore publishes no street address, and the register’s coordinate carries the location instead. The register also has no alamat, poskod, mukim, seksyen or lot field populated for this project, and no Bursa or contractor announcement for it could be located, so the usual route to a lot or PT number does not exist. For a Kuala Lumpur project there is also no public land register to cross-check against — Selangor’s covers Selangor and only affordable schemes — so the DBKL plan references are the proof.
What the filings print about where this is
- Pihak Berkuasa (PBT) yang meluluskan Pelan Bangunan: Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur — printed verbatim in both filed KPKT files and again in the developer’s own statutory block. DBKL’s planning jurisdiction is the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur only.
- No. Kelulusan Pelan Bangunan:
BP S1 OSC 2024 0776 (24)in both filed KPKT files, andBP S1 OSC 2021 1285in the developer’s own live block. Two unreconciled references — and both are DBKL, so the location is proved twice. - daerah: Kuala Lumpur · negeri: Wp Kuala Lumpur · lokasi: Kuala Lumpur, WP Kuala Lumpur — KPKT register, phase
10697-4. - Registered coordinates 3.109715, 101.664568 — filed.
- What we do NOT have here, and said honestly: both filed files print Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada. On other Federal Territory projects that field names the Kuala Lumpur land committee and gives a second, independent jurisdiction proof. Here it is blank, so that second proof does not exist and the finding rests on the two DBKL plan references and the register’s negeri field. Those are sufficient — but they are what there is.
- Keluasan Tanah: NOT PRINTED by either filing, by the register (“keluasan”: “0”), by the developer or by three annual reports.
Rail — three sources, three answers, and the FILED advertisement is the outlier
- The filed newspaper advertisement:
Bersebelahan dengan stesen LRT Kerinchi— “adjacent to Kerinchi LRT station”, with no distance. This is the document carrying the footer “IKLAN INI TELAH DILULUSKAN OLEH JABATAN PERUMAHAN NEGARA”. - Both developer e-brochures: Kerinchi LRT, Universiti LRT, Pantai Dalam KTM and Abdullah Hukum LRT shown on a map — no distance, no nearest claimed.
- One portal: nearest is LRT Universiti (KJ19) at 731 m, labelled straight-line. Kerinchi is not listed at all.
- One agent’s site: Universiti LRT 1.1 km; Kerinchi LRT 1.2 km, “walking, via link bridge”.
- So both sources that publish a number put Universiti nearer, and put Kerinchi about a kilometre away rather than next door. We name both stations and show the disagreement. The link bridge on which the Kerinchi walking claim depends is named in the e-brochures with no destination stated.
- Named by someone and measured by nobody: Abdullah Hukum LRT (developer’s map only), Muhibbah LRT, and any MRT station at all. The filed brochure names no station whatsoever.
The only labelled straight-line figures — one portal
- Medical clinic, unnamed — 69 m (not labelled as straight-line)
- The Sphere mall — 286 m, labelled straight-line — and one agent says 450 m
- Bangsar South Lakeside Park — 314 m (not labelled)
- LRT Universiti (KJ19) — 731 m, labelled straight-line
- KTM Angkasapuri (KD02) — 977 m, labelled straight-line — and one agent says 3.0 km for the same station, a three-fold disagreement
- Offices and other malls — “walkable”, no distance
- At least this source labels what its figures are. A straight-line distance is not a walk and not a drive.
Why the other thirteen distances are not on this page
- Neither of the developer’s two e-brochures prints a single distance — confirmed by separate reads of both files. They show a map with named places and no km and no minutes against any of them.
- The filed newspaper advertisement gives no distance either — it names five highways (Lebuhraya Persekutuan, Pantai Baru, Sprint, SPE, Hubungan Timur-Barat) and the categories shopping centres, hospitals, restaurants and daily-needs shops, with nothing attached to any of them.
- One agent’s site publishes thirteen distances and states that they are “as printed in the brochure”. They are not in either brochure. So that whole set has no primary support, whatever its origin, and it is not reproduced here as developer-published.
- No school, college or university distance is published by anyone — not even Universiti Malaya, whose LRT station both portals cite. No international school, no primary or secondary school.
- No hospital is named with a distance by anyone. The developer’s own Bangsar South medical centre is named as a group project in UOA Limited’s Annual Report 2024 and no source gives its distance from Laurel.
- No distance on this page was estimated, converted, interpolated, or taken from a neighbouring Bangsar South project’s page. Where two publishers disagree, both numbers are shown and the disagreement is named.
The “6 Acre Park” and the lifestyle hub are township assets, not this project’s. One agent places the park about 120 m away — i.e. off site — and Nexus and The Sphere, the subjects of the e-brochures’ “Award-Winning Lifestyle Hub” claim, are separate UOA developments. Bangsar South as a whole contains The Vertical, The Horizon, The Sphere, Nexus, UOA Corporate Tower, Residensi Laman Permai, Duo Tower, Goodwood and South Link, among others. Township amenity is real and it is not the same thing as a project facility, so this page keeps them apart.
RESIDENSI LAUREL, BANGSAR SELATAN — phase 10697-4, the filed particulars in full
This is the spine of the page. Every cell below is a label-and-value pair from the filed KPKT advertisement brochure, the filed newspaper advertisement or the KPKT TEDUH register record for phase 10697-4 — and where those sources disagree with each other or with the developer’s own published block, the cell shows both and says so. Scroll the table sideways on a phone.
| Registered scheme name | Licensed developer | Developer’s licence | Advertising & sale permit (APDL) | Units & components | Blocks & storeys | Unit types, as filed | Selling price — three bands | Tenure & title | Completion & delivery | Take-up, as filed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RESIDENSI LAUREL, BANGSAR SELATAN Phase 10697-4“nama”, KPKT register · and the page heading of both filed KPKT advertisement files. Marketed as Laurel Residence, and as Laurel Residences on the developer’s own township site map. | SUNNY UPTOWN SDN BHD Company no. 629260-H Developer code 10697 · register status: 4 projects, projek_sakit_count 0, projek_terbengkalai_count 0. The registration number appears ONLY in the filed newspaper advertisement. The filed brochure names no developer at all. | 10697/12-2028/1464(A) Valid 16/12/2023 – 15/12/2028 LIVE as at 8 October 2026. Filed brochure, filed newspaper advertisement and register agree. | 10697-4/12-2024/1774(A)-(S) Valid 16/12/2023 – 15/12/2024 EXPIRED — Tamat. The register’s project field prints the suffix (A); its own permit-history row and the filed brochure both print 1774(R)-(S). We publish the project field’s suffix and note the history row rather than pretend the two were reconciled.Two earlier permits, 0919(A)-(S) and 0919(P), both expired 15/12/2023. All three are Tamat, is_latest: false. | 1,260 Two components of 630 each Both Pangsapuri Suite · both Jadual H Nothing else is registered — no office, SOFO, SOHO, retail, shop or hotel row. | 42 storeys per tower · two towers Filed Bil Tingkat Pemajuan 42; register tingkat 42 on both components; “2 blocks of 42-storey residential towers” in UOA Limited’s Annual Reports 2022 and 2024. Jumlah Blok is not a field the filed brochure prints. | Filed schedule, five types: A 495 · 1+1 bed · 1 bath B 548 · 2 bed · 1 bath C 590 · 2 bed · 1 bath D 903 · 3 bed · 2 bath E 853 · 3 bed · 2 bath Type D1 is marketed and is NOT in the filing; no source publishes its size. Register keluasan: 0 on both rows — no unit areas published by the government at all. | FILED STATUTORY (current permit 1774):Harga Min / Mak Blok A RM517,000 – RM1,028,300 Harga Min / Mak Blok B RM517,000 – RM1,028,300 Identical for both towers. DEVELOPER’S OWN PUBLISHED (expired 2021 permit 0919(P), still live on its sites):RM450,000 – RM899,300 KPKT TEDUH REGISTRY: RM450,000 – RM1,028,300 — a SPLICE: the old permit’s minimum with the new permit’s maximum, matching no filed advertisement. This is the band the portals scrape. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. | Leasehold, Pajakan 99 tahun Expiring 30/06/2119 — about 93 years unexpired (our arithmetic) Filed title status: HAK MILIK SEMENTARA — provisional title.Bebanan Tanah: Tiada · Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada — so no chargee bank is named by anyone. Whether final title and strata titles have issued since the CCC is unpublished. | Both components: Siap Dengan CCC · peratus 100.00 CCC: 30/10/2024 vacant possession: 17/12/2024 First SPA 16/03/2022 · original period 36 months · original deadline 16/03/2025 Extension approved: +12 months → 48 months → revised deadline 16/03/2026. Delivered about three months inside the ORIGINAL deadline (our arithmetic) — and the filed Tarikh Dijangka Siap still reads Disember 2025. | Baki Unit Terkini Blok A: 173 Baki Unit Terkini Blok B: 176 = 349 remaining, filed October 2024 A KPKT panel dated 28/08/2026 gives 911 of 1,260 sold — and 1,260 − 349 = 911 exactly (our arithmetic). Identical figures 22 months apart: either nothing was registered, or the register is echoing the 2024 filing. No source says which. |
Sources for this table, in order of authority: the filed KPKT advertisement brochure and the filed newspaper advertisement, both lodged under the same KPKT HIMS filing reference and both read label by label; and the KPKT TEDUH register record for phase 10697-4. The developer’s own published statutory block — which appears on both of its websites and inside both of its e-brochures — is shown only where it differs from the filings, which it does on the price band, the building-plan approval and the licence field. A second brochure file (IKLAN_BROSUR_02) returns 404: there is only one filed brochure.
What the filed brochure does NOT print, each one a finding: the licensed developer’s name · the company registration number · Keluasan Tanah (land area) · Tempat Letak Kereta (car park) · Jumlah Blok (block count) · architect · engineer · main contractor · solicitor · financier or chargee · the project site address · the postcode · mukim, seksyen, lot or PT number · and Diskaun Bumiputera, which appears in the filed brochure as no field at all — the inverse of the developer’s own published block, which does carry such a field and whose value is withheld here under this site’s compliance rule. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
A current developer’s licence is not a current advertising permit — and on Laurel that distinction is the whole story
These are two separate instruments and Laurel is the clearest example on this site of why the difference matters. The developer’s licence, 10697/12-2028/1464(A), is the licence to carry on housing development; it runs to 15 December 2028 and it is live. The APDL is a shorter-lived permit that authorises the advertising and selling of a specific registered phase, and it is renewed in generations — here three of them, every one now Tamat: 1774(R)-(S) expired 15 December 2024, and 0919(A)-(S) and 0919(P) both expired 15 December 2023. The register marks all three is_latest: false, so there is no live advertising-and-sale permit on record for this scheme. For a building that received its CCC in October 2024 that is unremarkable in itself — completed stock is not normally sold under an APDL. But about 349 of the 1,260 units were recorded unsold at the last filing, so anyone marketing those units today is doing so outside any permit shown in the register, and a buyer is entitled to ask under what instrument. Two live traps follow from the same confusion. First, the developer’s own published statutory block puts an APDL serial — 10697-4/12-2023/0919(L) — in the field labelled “Developer’s License No”, with a validity of 16/12/2021 – 15/12/2023, on four of its own surfaces, unchanged today. A phase-indexed serial beginning 10697-4/… is a permit number; the licence is 10697/12-2028/1464(A), with no phase index and a different validity. Second, never pass the live licence off as a live permit: on this project the licence is current and the permit is dead.
Foreign buyers — Kuala Lumpur / Federal Territory
The threshold is a minimum purchase price of RM1,000,000 per unit, with State Authority consent required. Honesty note: the two foreigner guides we tried to re-source this round both returned 404, so treat RM1,000,000 as the prevailing policy figure and verify it before acting. For contrast, Selangor applies RM2,000,000 in Zones 1 and 2 (strata and gated landed strata only) and RM1,000,000 in Zone 3, i.e. Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam. Now the Laurel arithmetic, which cuts both ways. On the current filed statutory band RM517,000 – RM1,028,300, the maximum clears the floor by RM28,300, so a small number of the largest units — by elimination the 903 sq ft tier, which is our elimination and not a published statement — would be eligible. On the KPKT registry band the maximum is the same figure, so it clears too. On the developer’s OWN published band, RM450,000 – RM899,300, not a single unit reaches the floor, and neither portal’s maximum does either. And no source publishes the unit mix by type, so the size of the eligible tier is unknown. The blunt version: eligibility at Laurel turns on the specific unit, the answer is usually no, and the marketing material cannot tell a foreign buyer whether they even qualify. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Construction and delivery — read against BOTH deadlines, which is the only honest way to do it
The register files the first SPA at 16 March 2022, an original construction period of 36 months and an original contractual vacant possession deadline of 16 March 2025. It then records pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya with tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 12 Bulan and tempohPembinaanBaharu: 48 Bulan, moving the deadline to 16 March 2026. Against those two dates, the filed outcome is a CCC of 30 October 2024, a vacant possession date of 17 December 2024 and peratus 100.00 with status Siap Dengan CCC on both 630-unit components. That is about three months inside the ORIGINAL deadline and about fifteen months inside the extended one — the comparisons are our arithmetic on filed dates. UOA Limited’s Annual Report 2024 states it in terms: “Laurel Residence was completed at the end of FY2024, ahead of its scheduled completion date.” So the general rule, stated plainly because this site applies it to every project: an approved extension of time is not by itself evidence of a delay. It amends the contractual date from which liquidated damages run. Whether a project was actually late can only be answered by reading the filed CCC and vacant possession dates against both the original and the revised deadline. Do that here and Laurel reads as an early delivery — which is also why the four completion stories in circulation matter: financial year 2026 (Annual Report 2022), December 2025 (both filings, both websites, both e-brochures), 16 March 2026 (the extended deadline) and 30 October 2024 (the filed CCC). Only the last one happened, and it is the earliest of the four. A buyer who signed to the original 36-month period and wants to know how the extension interacts with their own SPA should take their own legal advice; this page records the register’s entry, not its effect on an individual contract.
Four phases on one licence — and the real confusion risk is 67 metres away
Licence 10697 carries four registered phases, all of them in or beside this township, and the register credits the licensee with exactly four projects (10697-5 returns 404). They are: 10697-1, registered under the bare name “BANGSAR SOUTH” — Rumah Pangsa/Kondo, 470 units (180 + 290), 27 and 25 storeys, CCC 3 August 2010; 10697-2, registered under nothing but a pair of lot numbers, “LOT 58191 & LOT 58192” — Pangsapuri Servis, 720 units, 34 storeys, CCC 2013; 10697-3, RESIDENSI LAMAN PERMAI — Pangsapuri Suite, the same filed type as Laurel, 678 units, 40 storeys, CCC 6 April 2022; and 10697-4, this project. 10697-3 sits roughly 67 m from Laurel by the two filed coordinate pairs — our arithmetic on filed coordinates — same licensee, same filed building type, same “Residensi” convention, two storeys fewer, completed two and a half years earlier. It is the development most likely to be confused with Laurel by a portal, by a bank’s valuer or by a search engine, and the two towers are closer to each other than Laurel is to anything else named on this page. Two practical warnings. Anything you find in the KPKT register under the bare string “Bangsar South” is the 2010 project, not this one. And nobody addresses whether Laman Permai shares Laurel’s access road, car park, facilities or management corporation — a real question for a buyer and one no source answers. One honesty note on our own work: an exhaustive national sweep for other Malaysian developments called Laurel could not be completed, because the register’s keyword-search endpoint timed out on every attempt. Treat “no other Laurel exists” as unproven. Every source used here was instead individually re-confirmed against at least two of: phase 10697-4, Sunny Uptown Sdn Bhd, 1,260 units, 42 storeys, two blocks, Bangsar South / Kerinchi Kuala Lumpur, and 495–903 sq ft.
Not published, therefore not on this page
Nobody publishes these, so neither do we. The project’s street address · the mukim, seksyen, lot or PT number · the land area — and therefore no density figure · the car park provision, bays, ratio, levels or allocation · whether final title and strata titles have issued since the October 2024 CCC · whether the land use is residential or commercial · the unit mix by type · which types sit in Blok A as against Blok B · Type D1’s built-up area · the main contractor, architect, C&S and M&E engineers, solicitor and financier · the chargee bank (Bebanan Tanah is filed Tiada) · an authoritative service charge or sinking fund figure · the facilities legend’s number-to-name pairing and the filed ground-floor facility list · any level assignment beyond “Level 5” · the shuttle bus’s route, destination or frequency and the link bridge’s destination · a single distance from the developer, to anything · any school, college or university distance from anyone · current take-up · whether a live APDL exists today for the unsold units · and what changed between the two DBKL plan approvals.
Withheld by choice, under this site’s compliance rule. Two independent publishers — an automated new-project portal that cites the government register as its source, and a single named agent’s site — carry a “from” figure that sits below the current filed statutory minimum of RM517,000, and one of them labels its own figure as indicative and gross, before adjustments. Neither figure is printed anywhere on this page; only the fact that the discrepancy exists and that two genuinely independent sources carry it, neither of them the developer. A Diskaun Bumiputera field exists in the developer’s own published statutory block on four surfaces and its value is withheld here — and note the inverse finding, that the filed KPKT brochure prints no such field at all. No rebate, no nett price, no promotional package, no freebie, no incentive, no commission, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate and no yield or return projection appears on this page, and none was sought. The words above are used only in this disclosure, which is the only place this site permits them. For a current price list and real availability the sources are the price list and the SPA at the sales gallery — ask me and I will get them.
The licensee, the group, and the credentials this page refuses to borrow
The company a Laurel buyer contracts with is SUNNY UPTOWN SDN BHD (629260-H). It is named in the filed KPKT newspaper advertisement and in the KPKT register as SUNNY UPTOWN SDN. BHD., developer code 10697; its registration number appears in that filed newspaper advertisement and nowhere else at all. The filed advertisement brochure names no developer whatsoever — it prints Alamat Pemaju (an address) and No. Lesen Pemaju (a number) and never a name — and both of the developer’s own e-brochures do the same. Meanwhile every marketing surface says something else: uoa.com.my says “UOA Group” and footers UOA Development Management Sdn Bhd; uoaproperty.com says UOA Development Bhd; both portals say “UOA Group”. Read the counterparty name on your own SPA and check it against the register.
The ownership chain, assembled from the licensee’s listed parent’s own filings: UOA Limited → UOA Development Bhd → Sunny Uptown Sdn Bhd (629260-H) → RESIDENSI LAUREL, BANGSAR SELATAN. UOA Limited’s Annual Report 2024 lists Sunny Uptown in its corporate structure chart as a 100% group entity without linking it to Laurel Residence or to any project; the Annual Report 2025 lists it among UOA Development Bhd’s subsidiaries. The link from Sunny Uptown to Laurel comes from the KPKT register; the link from Sunny Uptown up to the group comes from the annual reports; and no single document states the whole chain. This is the group’s normal practice rather than an anomaly — a search of the KPKT developer register for “UOA” returns nothing at all, because no licensed housing developer in Malaysia carries that name, and the GreenRE register independently surfaces two further UOA Bangsar South licensees, Dynasty Portfolio Sdn Bhd and Full Marks Property Sdn Bhd, neither of them called “UOA” anything.
What the register says about the licensee, and it is clean. 4 projects, projek_sakit_count 0, projek_terbengkalai_count 0 — no sick project, no abandoned project — and all four phases, 10697-1 through 10697-4, now recorded Siap Dengan CCC. Four for four delivered, per the government register. Read that alongside the delivery finding on this page and it is the strongest thing in the record: the licensee’s parent said Laurel finished “ahead of its scheduled completion date”, and the government register independently corroborates it from filed dates rather than merely repeating the claim. That is rare, and it is worth saying as plainly as the problems are said.
Two addresses and two telephone numbers, and only one of each ever reaches the public. The register files the alamat berdaftar (registered office) as No. 9, Jalan Indah 16, Taman Cheras Indah, 56100 Kuala Lumpur and the alamat perniagaan (business address) as UOA Corporate Tower, Lobby A, Avenue 10, The Vertical, Bangsar South City, No. 8, Jalan Kerinchi, 59200 Kuala Lumpur — the second being the one printed as Alamat Pemaju in the filed brochure, and the only one that appears in any public-facing material. The register’s telephone is 03-2245 9019; the marketing site’s is 03 2282 9993. The register’s e-mail address sits on the brand’s domain, not the licensee’s, and the register’s website field for this developer reads -: there is no official project microsite, only a page inside each of the group’s two corporate sites.
Three errors on the developer’s own published surfaces, recorded because a buyer may rely on them. First, its statutory block puts an APDL serial — 10697-4/12-2023/0919(L) — in the field labelled “Developer’s License No”, with a validity two permit generations out of date, on four surfaces, unchanged today. Second, the same block prints DBKL plan approval BP S1 OSC 2021 1285 while both filed KPKT files print BP S1 OSC 2024 0776 (24), and nobody reconciles them. Third, the brand’s two websites give the same new-format registration number, 200401015520, to two differently named companies — against UOA Development Bhd (654023-V) on one and against UOA Development Management Sdn Bhd (1589356-W) on the other. A 2004 incorporation number is consistent with the first old-format number and not with the second, so one of the two pairings is wrong. Neither of those companies is the licensee of Laurel Residence in any event, which is why this page names the licensee and describes UOA as the group rather than repeating either pairing as fact.
Credentials this page refuses to borrow, and the refusals matter as much as the claims. Awards: the developer’s own awards page carries six, all from The Edge Malaysia, all corporate — Top Property Developers Awards 2023, 2024 and 2025 to UOA Development Bhd, plus Billion Ringgit Club and Centurion Club awards to UOA Development Bhd and UOA REIT — and not one names a project. None names Laurel, Bangsar South, Nexus, The Sphere, Duo Tower, Goodwood or South Link, and none was awarded to Sunny Uptown Sdn Bhd. Both e-brochures separately claim an “Award-Winning 6 Acre Park” and an “Award-Winning Lifestyle Hub” with no awarding body, no year and no support on the developer’s own awards page — and both describe township assets, not this project. “Award-winning Laurel Residence” would be a false statement and it does not appear here. Green certification — Laurel DOES hold one, and the developer never mentions it. the GreenRE public register carries a row reading “Laurel Residence, Bangsar South”, developer Sunny Uptown Sdn Bhd — the licensee itself, matching the filing exactly — at Bronze, FINAL certification, dated 18 August 2025 (GreenRE Bronze register, read 8 October 2026). Print it as the register prints it: Bronze, and FINAL — not provisional, and not a higher tier. Against that, the developer claims nothing: no GBI logo, no GreenRE logo, not the word green or sustainable, on either website or in either e-brochure, and uoa.com.my has no sustainability or ESG page at all — so a buyer would never learn this from the marketing material, which is the opposite of the usual problem. Two honesty notes attach to it. First, this is a certification, not an award: the awards finding above is unchanged, and every award on the developer’s page remains corporate. Second, the register reads are graded: the GreenRE Platinum table was read in full, 95 rows, and contains no Laurel, no Sunny Uptown and no UOA entity; the Gold table was read across three overlapping passes with no Laurel row but not to its end; and the GBI directory returns 404. None of those is a safe negative — the Bronze row is a safe positive, and that is the difference. And the neighbour’s rating stays with the neighbour: the sibling Duo Tower @ Bangsar South does appear on the GreenRE Gold register — twice, and in both rows the status is PROVISIONAL, with the developer named as Dynasty Portfolio Sdn Bhd in one row and Full Marks Property Sdn Bhd in the other. Different project, different licensees, provisional not final. It does not migrate onto this page in any form. Different project, different licensees, provisional against final, and a different tier. The fair comparative observation is simply that the group pursues GreenRE across this township and the two buildings sit at different places in it: Laurel holds Bronze and it is final; Duo Tower is listed at Gold and it is provisional.
The developer’s own words, and what sits behind them. “Klang Valley’s Most Sought-after Address” is the project page’s own headline on uoaproperty.com, with no take-up ranking, no sales award, no index and no citation — and the filed record cuts the other way, with about 349 of 1,260 units, roughly 28%, still unsold at the last filing (that comparison is ours). “Bangsar South is proudly holding its own as an iconic township” is the developer describing a township it built itself. “Strategically Connected” and “Easy access to everything” sit on a page that publishes not one distance to anything. On the other side of the ledger, “Life emerges beautifully in Bangsar South’s Laurel Residence” and “From the pool to the garden, the landscape for leisure beckons invitingly” are atmosphere and are presented here as nothing more. Nobody claims “low density” for this project — and on 1,260 units in two 42-storey towers with no published land area, nobody could defend it. Nobody claims a first, a largest or an exclusive either. Both e-brochures carry the usual disclaimers in terms: all information is “subject to change without prior notice and cannot form part of any offer or contract”, and “all illustrations shown are artist’s impressions and for reference only” — a line worth reading against the four dated photographs in the gallery above, which are the exception to it.
Scale, for context only. UOA Limited’s Annual Report 2024 puts Laurel Residence’s gross development value at approximately AUD 198.5 million, against approximately AUD 183.0 million in the Annual Report 2022 — the licensee’s parent reports to the Australian market, which is why its annual reports carry figures for this project that no Malaysian filing does. No announcement naming a main contractor, an architect or an engineer for this project could be located: the group reports through UOA Limited rather than Bursa Malaysia, and its investor-relations material surfaced no project-level contract award. That is why the lot number, the PT number and the contractor remain blanks on this page rather than facts.
Compiled on 8 October 2026 from: the KPKT TEDUH register records for phases 10697-1 to 10697-4 and the licensee’s developer record; the two filed KPKT HIMS advertisement files for this phase; the developer’s own published statutory block on both of its websites and in both of its e-brochures; UOA Limited’s Annual Reports 2022, 2024 and 2025; the GreenRE public register; the developer’s own CMS media records read through its WordPress REST API against a 404 negative control; and two named portal and agent sources, each quoted as such. Nothing on this page was taken from the sibling Goodwood, Duo Tower or South Link research, or from the existing Solarvest Suites page on this site. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Questions buyers actually ask about Laurel Residence @ Bangsar South
Laurel Residence has an approved 12-month extension on its delivery period. Was the project late?
Is Laurel Residence completed? I keep seeing December 2025.
uoa.com.my, on uoaproperty.com and in both of the developer’s e-brochures. There are four published completion stories for this one building: financial year 2026 (UOA Limited Annual Report 2022), December 2025 (both filings and every marketing surface), 16 March 2026 (the approved extended contractual deadline), and 30 October 2024 (the filed CCC). Only the last one happened. One portal, propertysifu.my, prints “Completed in 2025” on the same page as a KPKT panel showing CCC issued 2024-10-30.All three advertising permits have expired. Does that mean the developer cannot sell?
10697-4/12-2024/1774(R)-(S) expired 15 December 2024, and the two earlier permits, 0919(A)-(S) and 0919(P), expired 15 December 2023. The register marks all three is_latest: false. There is therefore no live advertising-and-sale permit on record for this scheme. For a building that received its CCC in October 2024 that is ordinary — a completed project is normally sold as completed stock rather than under an APDL. But about 349 of the 1,260 units were recorded unsold at the last filing, so a buyer or a co-agent should simply know that current marketing of those units is not covered by any permit shown in the register, and should ask what instrument the sale is now being made under. We record the register’s entries and do not editorialise past them. Note also one trap: the developer’s own published statutory block prints an APDL serial — 10697-4/12-2023/0919(L) — in the field labelled “Developer’s License No”, with a validity two permit generations out of date, on four of its own surfaces. The licence and the permit are not the same number and must not be read as one.Can a foreign buyer purchase at Laurel Residence?
What does the filed statutory price range actually say? I have seen three different bands.
1774: Harga Min RM517,000, Harga Mak RM1,028,300 — identical for Blok A and Blok B, which is itself notable for two separate towers. (2) The developer’s own published statutory band, under the expired 2021 permit 0919(P) and still live today on uoa.com.my, uoaproperty.com and in both e-brochures: RM450,000 to RM899,300. (3) The KPKT TEDUH registry band: RM450,000 to RM1,028,300. Look carefully at the third one — it is a splice. Its minimum is the old permit’s minimum and its maximum is the new permit’s maximum, so the government register prints a band that no filed advertisement ever carried — that inference is ours; each of the four figures is sourced above. And the spliced band is the one the portals scrape, which is how a RM1,000,000 foreign-buyer test can return a different answer depending on which surface you read. Which one is filed? Band (1) is the current filed advertisement. Band (2) is a filed advertisement that has expired. Band (3) is a registry field matching neither. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.Why is the project registered under a Malay name I have never seen?
“nama”: “RESIDENSI LAUREL, BANGSAR SELATAN”, and both filed KPKT advertisement files head their pages RESIDENSI LAUREL BANGSAR SELATAN — Malay word order, the Malay form of the township name, comma and all. Not one marketing source anywhere uses it. The developer markets Laurel Residence, and its own township site map inside its own e-brochure adds a third form, “Laurel Residences”, plural, alongside The Horizon, The Sphere and Nexus. When you search a government register, a land office or a bank’s panel list, search the registered name; when you search a portal, search the marketed one. They will not match each other.Who exactly am I signing the sale and purchase agreement with?
629260-H appears in the filed newspaper advertisement and nowhere else at all. The filed KPKT advertisement brochure names no developer whatsoever — it prints an Alamat Pemaju (an address) and a No. Lesen Pemaju (a number) and never the licensee’s name. Both of the developer’s e-brochures do the same. Meanwhile uoa.com.my says “UOA Group”, uoaproperty.com says “UOA Development Bhd”, and both portals say “UOA Group”. The ownership chain, assembled from the parent’s own filings, is UOA Limited → UOA Development Bhd → Sunny Uptown Sdn Bhd (629260-H) → RESIDENSI LAUREL, BANGSAR SELATAN — and no single document states the whole chain. This is the group’s normal practice, not an anomaly: the GreenRE register independently surfaces two more UOA Bangsar South licensees, Dynasty Portfolio Sdn Bhd and Full Marks Property Sdn Bhd, neither of them called “UOA” anything. Read the counterparty name on your own SPA and check it against the register before you sign.There are two different DBKL building-plan approval numbers. Which plan was my unit built to?
BP S1 OSC 2024 0776 (24). The developer’s own statutory block — still live today on uoa.com.my, on uoaproperty.com and inside both e-brochures — prints BP S1 OSC 2021 1285. Both are Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur references, so the Federal Territory location is proved twice over, which is the one useful thing about the discrepancy. The pattern — a 2021 One Stop Centre reference superseded by a 2024 one carrying a (24) revision marker — reads as an amended or re-approved building plan, and the unit count is unchanged at 1,260 on both. But no source says so, no source says what changed, and the developer has never updated its own published block. This is a question for the developer and for the architect’s certified as-built drawings, not for a web page.Is the title freehold or leasehold, and have strata titles been issued?
HAK MILIK SEMENTARA — provisional, or qualified, title. The building has had its CCC since 30 October 2024, so this is exactly the window in which final title and strata title issuance would be expected to move — and no source reached says whether they have. Both filed files also print Bebanan Tanah: Tiada (no land charge) and Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada (no restriction in interest), and the developer’s own block agrees with “Land Encumbrance: None”. Ask for a current title search — it is the only document that answers this, and it answers it in one page.Is this residential or commercial title? It affects my assessment, water and electricity rates.
saratan.my states that it is “commercial title, but it was sold under the Housing Development Act”. That combination is perfectly possible and it is also completely unsourced. It changes your quit rent, assessment, and water and electricity tariffs, so treat it as a question for the title search and the SPA, not as a fact you have read on a page.How many units are left, and how current is that figure?
propertysifu.my quotes a KPKT panel dated 28 August 2026 saying “911 of 1260 units sold”. 1,260 − 349 = 911 — that arithmetic is ours, and it matches the government panel to the unit, so two separate surfaces of the same government record agree. Roughly 72% sold, about 28% unsold. But note the dates: the brochure’s “latest remaining units” was filed in October 2024 and the panel reporting the identical 911 is dated August 2026. Either no further sale was registered with KPKT in those 22 months, or the register is simply echoing the 2024 filing. No source distinguishes the two, so the honest statement is that the most recent published take-up figure may be two years old. For what is actually available today, ask.How many unit types are there, and what are the sizes?
0 on both component rows, so it publishes no unit areas at all; the unit mix by type is published by nobody, so there is no way to say how many units sit in any tier; and nobody maps type to block, although the filed price bands being identical for Blok A and Blok B hints at a mirrored mix without saying so. No square-metre figure is published by anyone and none is converted here.How many car park bays come with a unit?
saratan.my alone says “1 floating bay per unit, not allocated”, and adds in its own FAQ that the bay is “not tied to a particular lot number”. If that is right it is important — a floating, unallocated bay is a different thing from a titled accessory parcel when you come to resell, to rent, or to park a second car. It has no primary support whatsoever. Confirm it in the SPA, in the strata plan and in the management corporation’s by-laws, in writing, before you rely on it.What facilities are there, and on what level?
uoa.com.my; on uoaproperty.com it publishes a section headed “Everyday Conveniences” consisting of eight icons with no text labels and no alt text — eight facilities communicated entirely as unlabelled pictures. The only level assignment the developer publishes anywhere is the plan label FACILITIES PLAN (Level 5) in its e-brochures, from which the Co-working Lounge sits on Level 5. The agent’s schedule on saratan.my splits the facilities between Level 5 and the ground floor, matches the filed Malay legend item for item almost throughout — which is good evidence it was read off the same plan — and is headed “23 Facilities On Level 5” while listing 21, that count being ours. The Level 5 / ground-floor split is the agent’s, not the filing’s. Two items appear on one portal and nowhere else, Wading Pool and Nursery, the latter plausibly its rendering of the filed Taska; Reflexology Path appears on the agent’s list with no filed counterpart. No source marks any facility as space-only or shell.What is the nearest train station? One source says the LRT is next door.
Bersebelahan dengan stesen LRT Kerinchi, “adjacent to Kerinchi LRT station”, with no distance. Both of the developer’s e-brochures show Kerinchi LRT, Universiti LRT, Pantai Dalam KTM and Abdullah Hukum LRT on a map and claim no nearest and print no distance. The two sources that do publish numbers both disagree with the filing and agree with each other on the substance: propertysifu.my makes the nearest station LRT Universiti (KJ19) at 731 m straight-line and does not list Kerinchi at all; saratan.my makes it Universiti at 1.1 km with Kerinchi at 1.2 km, walking, via a link bridge. So: every source that measures puts Universiti nearer, and puts Kerinchi about a kilometre away rather than next door. We name both stations, show the disagreement, and invent nothing. Walk it yourself before you decide what the commute is — and note that the “covered link bridge” on which the Kerinchi walking claim depends is named in the e-brochures with no destination stated.Why does this page carry so few distances?
saratan.my publishes thirteen distances and states that they are “as printed in the brochure”. They are not in either brochure. So that whole set has no primary support, whatever its origin, and it is not treated here as developer-published. propertysifu.my publishes five figures and labels three of them straight-line, which is at least honest about what they are. Where the two overlap they collapse: KTM Angkasapuri is 977 m on one and 3.0 km on the other, a three-fold disagreement about one station, and The Sphere is 286 m against 450 m. They cannot both be right and no primary source settles either. And the list of places named by someone and measured by nobody is long: every highway, every hospital, every school, college and university — including Universiti Malaya, whose station both portals cite — the airport, KLCC, Mid Valley Southkey and Pantai Hillpark. Nothing on this page was estimated, converted, interpolated, or taken from a neighbouring project’s page.What is the density? How many units per acre?
0 on both component rows; three UOA Limited annual reports give none. The only land figure in existence anywhere is one portal’s: propertysifu.my says Laurel sits “on 2.1 acres” — single-sourced, uncorroborated, no primary support — and we are not going to build a headline number on it. Two traps to avoid if anyone offers you a flattering density for this project. First, the “6 Acre Park” is not this project’s land — it is a Bangsar South township park that one agent separately places about 120 m away, i.e. off site, and using it as a denominator would understate the real density roughly three-fold. Second, never use the township: Bangsar South contains The Vertical, The Horizon, The Sphere, Nexus, UOA Corporate Tower, Residensi Laman Permai, Duo Tower, Goodwood, South Link and more, and no source publishes its acreage either. What is filed and not in doubt is the shape of the thing: 1,260 units in two 42-storey towers. Draw your own conclusions from that, and ask the developer for the land area — we have.Does Laurel Residence have any awards or a green certification?
uoa.com.my has no sustainability page at all. A buyer would never learn it from the marketing material. Two things to keep straight. It is a certification, not an award, so it does not change the awards answer above. And the other register reads are graded, not clean negatives: the GreenRE Platinum table was read in full (95 rows) with no Laurel, no Sunny Uptown and no UOA entity; the Gold table was read across three overlapping passes with no Laurel row but not to its end; and the GBI directory returns 404. The Bronze row is a safe positive; none of the others is a safe negative. One thing this page will still not do is borrow the neighbour’s rating: the sibling Duo Tower @ Bangsar South appears on the GreenRE Gold register twice, and in both rows the rating is PROVISIONAL, with the developer named as Dynasty Portfolio Sdn Bhd or Full Marks Property Sdn Bhd. Different project, different licensee, provisional not final, different tier. It does not transfer to Laurel in any form.I found another project called Laurel. How do I make sure I am looking at the right one?
10697-4, under licensee Sunny Uptown Sdn Bhd. Licence 10697 carries four registered phases, all four in or beside this township: 10697-1 registered as bare “BANGSAR SOUTH” (470 units, 27 and 25 storeys, CCC 2010); 10697-2 registered as nothing but a pair of lot numbers, “LOT 58191 & LOT 58192” (720 units, 34 storeys, 2013); 10697-3 RESIDENSI LAMAN PERMAI (678 units, 40 storeys, CCC 2022); and 10697-4, this project. 10697-3 sits roughly 67 m from Laurel by the two filed coordinate pairs — that distance is our arithmetic on filed coordinates, not a published figure — it has the same licensee, the same filed building type (Pangsapuri Suite), the same “Residensi” naming convention and two storeys fewer. It is the thing a portal is most likely to confuse with Laurel. Note too that anything you find in the KPKT register under the bare string “Bangsar South” is the 2010 project, not this one. One honesty note on our own work: an exhaustive national sweep for other developments called Laurel could not be completed — the register’s keyword-search endpoint timed out on every attempt — so treat “no other Laurel exists” as unproven. Every source used on this page was instead individually re-confirmed against at least two of: phase 10697-4, Sunny Uptown Sdn Bhd, 1,260 units, 42 storeys, two blocks, Bangsar South / Kerinchi Kuala Lumpur, 495–903 sq ft.The floor plans in the filed brochure are headed “Nexus” and “Jalan Pantai Permai”. What does that mean?
Nexus and Jalan Pantai Permai. Read twice, both times the same. Nexus is a real, separate UOA development at Bangsar South — it is named on the township site map in the developer’s own e-brochure alongside The Horizon, The Sphere and “Laurel Residences”, it is the subject of the brochure’s own “Award-Winning Lifestyle Hub (Nexus | The Sphere)” claim, and one agent lists “Nexus Bangsar South” as the nearest named place to Laurel. Jalan Pantai Permai is the only road name attached to this project by any source, and it is consistent with the filed coordinates sitting on the township’s southern edge. Two readings are open and neither can be closed from published material: either those headers are the genuine site locality, or they are template contamination from another UOA filing — a failure this site has documented before, on a project whose filed brochure narrated a different scheme entirely. The statutory block of this filing is internally sound and matches the register field for field; only these floor-plan headers are unexplained. So this page does not publish Jalan Pantai Permai as the project’s address, and does not publish Nexus as part of Laurel.What does this page deliberately not publish?
Want the filed record rather than a brochure summary?
I will send you both filed KPKT advertisement files for 10697-4, the government register record carrying the approved 12-month extension, the filed CCC of 30 October 2024 and the filed vacant possession of 17 December 2024 — the record that shows this building was finished inside its original deadline — and the three price bands side by side with which is filed and which is spliced. And I will put every blank on this page to SUNNY UPTOWN SDN BHD in writing: the land area, the lot and mukim, the car-park provision, the unit mix by type, Type D1’s built-up, whether strata titles have issued, which DBKL plan the building was built to, and what instrument the remaining units are being sold under now that all three advertising permits have lapsed.
Louis Koh · Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Louis Koh
Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency
I work Kuala Lumpur and Selangor projects, and I publish the filed statutory particulars and the government register record rather than brochure copy. On Laurel Residence that cuts in the developer’s favour and I will say so. An approved 12-month extension sits on this project’s register entry, and a lazy reading would call that a delay — but the filed CCC is 30 October 2024 and the filed vacant possession 17 December 2024, about three months inside the ORIGINAL deadline, and the licensee’s own listed parent says the building was completed “ahead of its scheduled completion date”. An approved extension is not by itself evidence of a delay, and this is the page that proves it. The work that is left is real all the same: all three filed advertising permits have lapsed while about 349 of 1,260 units were unsold; the filed title status is provisional and nobody publishes whether strata titles have issued; there are two unreconciled DBKL plan approvals; there are three price bands and the registry’s is a splice that matches no filed advertisement; the car park is not printed in any filing; and the land area is published by nobody, so no honest density figure exists. Where something is not published I say so and I go and ask. Where a credential belongs to a township, a sibling tower or the group rather than to this building — the awards, the neighbour’s provisional Gold — I leave it where it belongs. And where one really does belong to this building I print it as the register prints it: Laurel holds a GreenRE Bronze certification, final, dated 18 August 2025, certified to Sunny Uptown Sdn Bhd — and the developer mentions it nowhere.
Published 8 October 2026 · Last verified 8 October 2026 · Built from the KPKT TEDUH register record for phase 10697-4 and the licensee’s developer record, the two filed KPKT HIMS advertisement files, the developer’s own published statutory block and both of its e-brochures, UOA Limited’s Annual Reports 2022, 2024 and 2025, the GreenRE public register and the developer’s own CMS media records, with two named portal and agent sources quoted as such — all read on 8 October 2026. This is marketing information. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.
Worth putting beside this one
The Vertical Office Suites (Vertical Business Suites Tower A & B), Kampung Kerinchi (“Bangsar South”), Kuala Lumpur — <b>a STRATIFIED OFFICE PAIR of 35 and 32 storeys with NO KPKT REGISTRATION and NO DEVELOPER LICENCE EVER ISSUED for it</b> — so <b>no <code>Jadual G</code>, no <code>Jadual H</code>, no statutory liquidated damages, no section 7A housing development account, no filed completion date, no KPKT register entry to check and no Tribunal</b> — <b>while the Strata Titles Act 1985 and the Strata Management Act 2013 DO apply</b>; <b>TENURE IS CONTRADICTED 3 : 1 AND IQI’S OWN PAGE IS THE OUTLIER</b>; built-up published from <b>735 sq ft</b> with <b>no publishable ceiling</b>; <b>NO PRICE PUBLISHED AT ALL</b>; licensee of record <code>SUNNY UPTOWN SDN. BHD.</code> <code>10697</code> holds <b>FOUR</b> registrations and <b>not one of them is this building</b>; <code>Daerah Kuala Lumpur</code>, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur
WhatsAppUNITED POINT RESIDENCE, Jalan Lang Emas, Taman Sri Sinar, <b>52100 Kuala Lumpur</b>, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP KUALA LUMPUR — <b>a COMPLETED <code>Pangsapuri Suite</code> under <code>Jadual H</code></b>: <b>2,509 units in three 38-storey blocks, CCC 19 December 2019</b> — and <b>registered as <code>PUSAT PERDAGANGAN BERPADU</code></b>, a trade-centre name on a registration that holds nothing but homes, under register code <b><code>14325-1</code></b>
WhatsAppSENTUL POINT SUITE APARTMENTS, Jalan Sentul Pasar, <b>51000 Kuala Lumpur</b>, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP KUALA LUMPUR — <b>a COMPLETED <code>Pangsapuri Suite</code> under <code>Jadual H</code></b>: <b>2,352 units on TWO registrations, CCC 2 June 2020 and 17 February 2021</b> — and <b>registered as <code>Puncak Sentul</code>, the marketing name rendered into Malay AND REVERSED</b>, under register codes <b><code>14395-1</code></b> and <b><code>14395-2</code></b>
WhatsApp
Kuala Lumpur
Freehold
FreeholdAsk a specific question
If you would rather not use WhatsApp, use this. I answer them myself. Only your name and one contact method are required.
Developer: UOA Group (10 developments on this site)
Where it is: Bangsar South, Kuala Lumpur (KL)
The unit mix, the permitted price and how far up it is
None of this table is the developer’s account of itself. It is what the Ministry of Housing and Local Government records from the 7(f) returns: unit type, bedrooms and bathrooms, built-up area, unit count, the price range on the permit, and the certified percentage complete. A brochure price can be revised; the price on the permit was filed. A brochure need not mention progress; the percentage is certified. The status vocabulary is theirs too: Lancar (on schedule), Lewat (behind), Sakit (sick), Terbengkalai (abandoned).
10697-4 · RESIDENSI LAUREL, BANGSAR SELATAN
Overall status: Siap Dengan CCC — completed
| Component | Bed / bath | Built-up | Units | Price on the permit | Complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pangsapuri Suite 42 storeys Siap Dengan CCC | 1, 2, 3 / 1, 2 | — | 630 | RM450,000.00 – RM1,028,300.00 | 100.00% |
| Pangsapuri Suite 42 storeys Siap Dengan CCC | — | — | 630 | RM450,000.00 – RM1,028,300.00 | 100.00% |
Swipe the table sideways for the rest of the columns.
This is the document the developer had to file, and the housing department had to approve, before it was allowed to advertise at all — served from the ministry’s own host. It normally carries the location plan, the developer licence and building-plan approval references, the expected completion date, the encumbrance position, and the unit count and price floor and ceiling for each type. The brochure a salesperson hands you can be reissued. This one cannot.
Read from teduh.kpkt.gov.my on 2026-10-23, project code 10697-4. Re-read weekly.
What to do with the number. Read it against the delivery date in your own agreement, not against what a salesperson says. A project with a year left on its statutory clock and a third of the building up is telling you something the brochure will not.
How does that compare? Every development on this site, grouped by register status — cancelled, abandoned and behind schedule first.