THE MAPLE RESIDENCES, Taman OUG (Taman Overseas Union), Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP KUALA LUMPUR — a COMPLETED freehold Jadual H CONDOMINIUM: 940 units in Blok A, B and C, CCC and register vacant possession both 30 May 2025 — registered as Residensi Mapel OUG, with Maple respelled Mapel, under register code 14379-2, and with an advertising permit that LAPSED on 8 September 2025

Nine things about The Maple Residences that nobody else prints

This is a finished building that is still being sold, which is an unusual position and the reason a brochure is the wrong document to read. The register, the filed advertisement dated 8 August 2024 and the developer’s own two surfaces disagree with each other on the permit, the licence suffix, the green status, the chargee, the completion date and the nearest station — and every one of those disagreements is printed below rather than smoothed over.

The unit types as the developer prints them — and the floor plans this page will not show you

The filed KPKT advertisement for 14379-2 contains NO unit-type schedule, no type codes, no built-up areas, no bedroom counts and no bathroom counts. That is not an unreadable schedule — it is an absent one. So every built-up below is the developer’s own marketing figure, taken from its project page exactly as printed, and none of them is a statutory figure. And there are no floor plans on this page, which needs explaining rather than glossing. Six floor plans DO exist on the developer’s own host, one per type, each with its type code, built-up, bedroom and bathroom count printed directly above it and the same type code in its own filename — two independently agreeing legs, which is as good as this kind of evidence gets. They were declined anyway, because that host publishes no pixel dimensions by any route and an image that cannot be MEASURED cannot be accepted. Nothing has been substituted. Every panel below says in words what a plan would have shown. Read the register’s own bedroom field first, because it carries a fact none of the marketing does: four-bedroom units exist in Blok C only.

Every built-up, bedroom, bathroom and yard figure in this section is the developer’s own marketing figure and none of them is filed. No type code, built-up, bedroom count or bathroom count appears in the filed KPKT advertisement for 14379-2 at all. The register’s keluasan field is not used anywhere on this page as an area: it reads 0 – 87, 0 – 96 and a bare 0, and the bare zero sits on the block holding the largest units. The real per-type schedule comes from the sale and purchase agreement’s Schedule H annexure and from the developer’s price list; ask Louis and he will get them.

Why there are no renders on this page

No images from the developer’s marketing are reproduced here. A render is drawn to sell. It is not something the developer is contractually bound to build, and there is nothing in it you can check against a document.

Ask for these three in writing instead: the approved building plan, the unit layout with its stated built-up area, and the specification schedule attached to the sale and purchase agreement. Those bind the developer. A render does not.

Taman OUG (Taman Overseas Union), Kuala Lumpur — and the site address nobody publishes

Start with the blank, because it is the biggest one on this page: no source anywhere publishes this project’s own site address, street frontage, lot or PT number, mukim or section. The filed advertisement prints only the DEVELOPER’S address. The KPKT register prints only a coordinate pair. And the only lot number WCT publishes — Lot PT 15210, Jalan Awan Besar, Taman Overseas Union, 58200 Kuala Lumpur — is the address of its SALES GALLERY, not of this project, and it is not published here as the project’s. What IS settled, on five agreeing legs, is the district and the authority: the filed advertisement names DBKL as the approving authority for the building plan; the plan serial BP S3 OSC 2022 2492 (19) is a DBKL form and DBKL has jurisdiction only inside the Federal Territory; the register reads daerah: Kuala Lumpur and negeri: WP Kuala Lumpur; WCT’s own contact page postcodes its gallery 58200, which is the Taman Overseas Union postcode; and the Federal Territories’ own affordable-housing register groups this whole south-west belt under the label Seputeh. That last point is worth stating plainly: OUG is a MARKETING locality, not a gazetted one. The government uses neither Taman OUG nor Taman Overseas Union — the register files only daerah: Kuala Lumpur, and there is no OUG label in the Federal Territories’ own locality list at all. This page is filed under Taman OUG because that is the name the project, the developer and buyers use; the gazetted grouping is printed here rather than hidden in a second label. And then the distances, which are the sharpest contradiction on this project.

KPKT register: Residensi Mapel OUG, register code 14379-2

Two statutory surfaces exist for this project and this page reads both: the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for 14379-2, and the filed advertisement particulars (BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN) whose own document path dates it to 8 August 2024. A third surface, the developer’s own simplified e-brochure dated V05.09.2023, is not statutory but prints the same fields — and disagrees with both of them on three of those fields. Everything in the table below is a field on one of those surfaces, quoted with the surface it comes from. Where the three disagree, the table prints all three.

Read the licence and the permit as two different instruments, because that is the single most consequential line in this table. The developer’s LICENCE 14379/09-2027/0809(A) is LIVE to 8 September 2027. The advertising and sales PERMIT for this registration, 14379-2/09-2025/0642(R)-(S), EXPIRED on 8 September 2025 and no later record exists. This page never passes the licence validity off as permit validity.

Source discipline on this table. Register fields are the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for developer code 14379 and project code 14379-2, read 15 October 2026, with the serial walk continued to a client error on 14379-4 against bilanganProjek: 3. Filed-advertisement fields come from the BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN document whose own path dates it 8 August 2024 and whose URL was read out of the register’s own iklan array rather than constructed. Where the developer’s simplified e-brochure (V05.09.2023) differs, both are printed and the register or the later filed document is the one published as the fact. No figure in this table has been taken from any other registration on this licence, from any other WCT development, or from any neighbouring page on this site.

It is FINISHED — and the developer’s own page never says so

The KPKT register records a CCC of 30 May 2025 and a register vacant possession date of 30 May 2025 on all three component rows, with peratusSiap 100.00 and a status of Siap Dengan CCC. That is the cleanest form this record takes: where other completed schemes on this site carry a CCC and an empty VP field — and can therefore be called neither late nor on time — this register populates both with the same date. And the developer does not say it. wctland.com.my publishes no completion date and no status at all: its “Property Status” field reads Freehold Condominium, which is a tenure and a built form rather than a status. The one third-party publisher is worse: it says “under construction” in its body text while its own KPKT panel on the same page prints Siap Dengan CCC. One publisher contradicting itself on one page. So the single most useful sentence on this page is the first one: this building is complete, it has been complete for about sixteen and a half months, and the evidence is the register’s own field, printed here with the code so you can repeat the check. A page about this project that read as a new launch would be the one genuinely dishonest version available, and that is why this one carries no launch language, no countdown and no register-your-interest device anywhere.

And the advertising permit LAPSED — 403 days ago, while the licence runs to 2027

The register’s current advertising and sales permit record for 14379-2 is 14379-2/09-2025/0642(R)-(S), which ran 9 September 2024 to 8 September 2025. It has EXPIRED, no later permit record exists, and as at 15 October 2026 that is 403 days ago. Credit the record before the gap, because it deserves it: permit cover was CONTINUOUS across five years of selling, with four consecutive records butting end to end from 9 September 2020 to 8 September 2025 — 0604(P), then 0390(R)-(S), then 1413(R)-(S), then 0642(R)-(S) — and not one uncovered day. The first sale and purchase agreement, on 8 December 2020, fell about three months AFTER the first permit took effect, which is the right order. Then it stopped. And the honest reading is not a scandal: an APDL authorises advertising and selling a development under construction, and the CCC issued about three months before the last permit expired — on a completed building there is nothing left to permit. But 288 of 940 units were recorded unsold at the two latest readings, so stock IS being marketed. This page states the lapse as fact, states the completion as fact, and does not resolve the tension between them. Why no permit has been issued since 8 September 2025 while stock remains is a question for KPKT or the developer, and it is on this page’s not-published list. Never read the licence as the permit. The licence 14379/09-2027/0809(A) is live to 8 September 2027. Two different instruments, two different dates. And the permit exists in THREE states on three surfaces, which is why the number above is quoted from the register alone: the register has the current-but-lapsed record; the filed advertisement prints a literal XXX placeholder in both the permit-number and the validity field, so lapse-versus-current cannot be assessed from the filing at all; and the developer’s own e-brochure publishes 14379-2/09-2024/1413(R)-(S), two generations stale and dead since 8 September 2024.

The registered name respells the brand — Maple becomes Mapel, and no KPKT search finds it

The scheme is registered as Residensi Mapel OUG. Maple becomes Mapel — one letter transposed, the English brand word respelled into Malay orthography — Residences becomes Residensi, and the marketing locality OUG survives intact. This is not a translation by meaning, not a word reversal, not a Malay toponym sharing no word with the brand, and not the company’s own name. It is a phonetic respelling, which makes it the closest a registered name has come to a marketing name on this site — and for exactly that reason the one most likely to be mis-TYPED rather than mis-recognised. And the trap is worse than a spelling slip. A KPKT developer search on MAPLE returns THREE real licensed developers and not one of them is this project’s: a ten-project licensee in Melaka Tengah, one in Seberang Perai in Penang and one in Muar in Johor. Searching MAPEL instead would not help either, because the register’s search endpoint looks at DEVELOPER names only — there is no project-name search on the register at all. So a buyer who types either spelling into any KPKT surface finds nothing, and a confident, plausible, completely wrong answer set is what a brand search on a generic English noun returns. Use the code: 14379-2, on licence 14379/09-2027/0809(A). And remember which name goes on the paperwork — Residensi Mapel OUG is what will appear on the sale and purchase agreement and on the loan documents. For completeness, nine other “Maple” things were checked and refused by name on this job: three licensed developers in three other states, a Johor Land registration, a completed YTL condominium in Sentul, a Platinum-rated Sunway scheme in Iskandar, an industrial logistics brand whose name merely contains the word, a hospitality MANAGER that licenses the word to hotels, and an international school. None of them has any relationship to this project and nothing from any of them appears on this page.

All 940 units are Jadual H — and that can be stated as fact, not hedged

pjb.jenis on 14379-2 reads Jadual H. The register files ONE jenisBangunan for the whole registration, Rumah Pangsa/Kondo, and THREE component rows — 303 + 295 + 342 — all three of that one type, summing to exactly 940. No office suite, SOHO, studio-office, retail lot or serviced-apartment parcel is named by the filing, by the register, by the developer or by the one publisher. And 14379-4 returns a client error against bilanganProjek: 3, so there is no fourth registration for a non-HDA parcel to hide in. That is a positive result and this page states its consequences as facts rather than hedging them: every one of the 940 units carries Schedule H, the Housing Development Act liquidated-damages clause for late delivery, the section 7A housing development account, the statutory 24-month defect liability period running from vacant possession, and access to the Housing Tribunal. And the one thing that must not cross: another registration on this very licence — 14379-3, whose register coordinate sits about 89 metres from this one by this page’s own arithmetic — is filed Pangsapuri Servis, a serviced apartment. ONE licence, ONE masterplan, TWO different filed product classes. This project’s condominium classification must never be read onto that one, and that one’s serviced-apartment classification must never be read onto this one. It has its own page on this site and its own figures, and nothing crosses between the two but this cross-reference.

Two legally filed price bands, and the register explains the gap between them

There are TWO legally filed bands on this project and they answer different questions, which is why printing either one alone as “the price” would be misleading. The register’s component bands are the LAUNCH band: RM643,000 – RM1,151,150 on Blok A, RM696,000 – RM1,209,800 on Blok B and RM1,262,700 – RM1,664,050 on Blok C, i.e. RM643,000 – RM1,664,050 across the development. The filed advertisement dated 8 August 2024 is the REMAINING-STOCK band as at that date: RM765,900 – RM1,151,150 on Blok A, RM803,850 – RM1,209,800 on Blok B, RM1,262,700 – RM1,664,050 on Blok C, i.e. RM765,900 – RM1,664,050. The block-to-row join is exact and worth stating, because the register leaves its rows unlabelled: the filed advertisement names Blok A 303, Blok B 295 and Blok C 342, and the register’s three rows carry 303, 295 and 342. Three distinct counts, three rows, one unambiguous mapping — the unit count is the cheapest join key there is. Now the explanation, and it passes three independent tests. First, no maximum moved — not one, not by one sen — which is the precondition for a remaining-stock reading. Second, both minima that moved, moved UP: Blok A by RM122,900 and Blok B by RM107,850. Third, and this is what makes it evidence rather than a story, the block whose minimum did NOT move is the block that still had most of its stock: the filed Baki Unit Belum Dijual field reads Blok A 27 of 303, Blok B 74 of 295 and Blok C 187 of 342. Blok C still had more than half its units, so its cheapest unit was still on the shelf and its minimum stayed exactly where the register put it, while in Blok A and Blok B the cheap stock was gone and those are precisely the two minima that rose. So both bands are published here, labelled and dated, with that explanation; neither is published as “the price”; and the practical point for a buyer is that remaining stock faces the HIGHER of the two. These are statutory and public-registry figures, stated per block rather than per unit. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.

Delivery: 5.4 months early, 17.7 months late, and 2.9 months past the developer’s own expectation

All three of those sentences are true at once, so this page prints all three and adjudicates none. The first sale and purchase agreement was dated 8 December 2020, which on the original 36-month Jadual H period put contractual vacant possession at 8 December 2023. The register then records pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya with an approved extension of +23 months, taking the construction period to 59 months and the contractual date to 8 November 2025. The CCC issued on 30 May 2025 and the register’s VP field carries the same date. So: against the EXTENDED contractual date the building was delivered about 5.4 months EARLY; against the ORIGINAL date the first purchasers signed for, about 17.7 months LATE; and against the developer’s OWN filed expectation of MARCH 2025 — printed on both the filed advertisement and the e-brochure — about 2.9 months late. And the disclosure point: the extension is twenty-three months and almost nobody mentions it. wctland.com.my publishes no completion date and no status at all; the e-brochure and the filed advertisement both print March 2025, which is neither the original nor the extended contractual date; and the single third-party publisher is the only surface anywhere that discloses the extension, which it does as “36 months + 23 months”. A portal out-disclosing a developer on its own delivery record is not a sentence this site enjoys writing, and it is written here because it is true. The licence’s own record is worth one line, because it is clean: no Lewat flag, no cancelled permit, no mempunyaiKesalahan record and no dormant unstarted registration anywhere on developer code 14379.

The company you contract with is not the company the marketing names

Every WCT marketing surface for this project names WCT Land Sdn Bhd. The project page’s own enquiry-consent text names it — “by or on behalf of WCT Land Sdn Bhd and/or its related corporations” — and the footer reads “© 2026 WCT LAND”. WCT Land Sdn Bhd holds NO KPKT developer licence. The licensed developer is WCT OUG DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD., KPKT developer code 14379, holding licence 14379/09-2027/0809(A) and three registered schemes — and the project page never names it once. Both halves are true and the page says which does which job: WCT Land is the brand and the marketing entity; WCT OUG Development Sdn Bhd is the licensee, the vendor on the Jadual H contract, the holder of the section 7A housing development account and the party every statutory remedy runs against. If you are signing, that is the name on the page you are signing. Two further things about the licensee are recorded exactly as printed and NOT adopted. One, the company registration number: the filed advertisement prints 14216-V in its body and renders the same string 14216-VJ in its own header — two spellings of one number inside one document — and NO second surface prints any registration number for this licensee at all. Neither the register, nor the e-brochure, nor the project page, nor the one publisher. Closed by an SSM company profile, or by the subsidiary list in the listed parent’s audited annual report. Two, the address: the filed advertisement gives the developer’s address in Klang, while BOTH of the register’s own address legs for code 14379 read The Ascent, Paradigm, Jalan SS7/26A, Kelana Jaya, 47301 — and that Klang address is the register’s BUSINESS address for a DIFFERENT licensee in the same group. So the licensee is negative on both of its own register legs and positive on a sibling licensee’s. Printed as printed, adopted nowhere, and unresolved.

A real GreenRE FINAL certificate — and the developer calls its own certificate “provisional”

The GreenRE register records The Maple Residences, WCity OUG against WCT OUG Development Sdn Bhd at BRONZE, with FINAL CERTIFICATION, dated 26 September 2025, under the residential tool RES v3.2. There is no identification doubt whatsoever: the licensee is named in the register row character for character, the tool is the residential one, and the project name carries the township. That is the strongest form of green attribution this site records short of a certificate in hand. The chronology is coherent too: CCC on 30 May 2025, final certification on 26 September 2025 — four months later, which is the normal order for an as-built rating. And then the contradiction, which runs the unusual way. WCT’s own corporate property page lists this project as “Provisional GreenRE Bronze”, and the developer’s own simplified e-brochure says only that “a GreenRe award was given”, naming no level and no year. Three versions of one fact on three surfaces. This page publishes the issuing body’s own status — BRONZE, FINAL CERTIFICATION, 26 September 2025 — because the register is the issuing body, it is the later record, and the Bronze tier listing’s own date window fully spans that date, so the row is not a truncation artefact. The standing rule on this site is that provisional must never be written as certified. Here that rule runs backwards: a developer understating its own achievement. The honesty is worth crediting and the stronger, verified fact is what gets published. And a warning about the same table, because it cuts both ways: on that one corporate page WCT UNDERSTATES this project’s FINAL Bronze and separately describes another of its projects’ genuinely PROVISIONAL rating as a plain rating. One developer table, two projects, two errors in opposite directions. Neither reading may be borrowed across, and nothing from any other WCT development’s certification appears on this page. The rest of the green picture, stated precisely: Platinum is a genuine clean negative, read untruncated; Gold and Silver are clean negatives for a certificate of this date, because both listings’ windows span 26 September 2025. The national GBI directory has been unreachable throughout this series, so GBI is INCONCLUSIVE and not a negative. No BCA Green Mark and no LEED claim is made by anybody, and WCT publishes no certificate library, so that is recorded as “none claimed” rather than “none exists”. No award, accolade or QLASSIC score is claimed for this project by any surface read, and none has been borrowed from any other development by this group.

Foreign buyers: the threshold, the one block that is computable, and the count that is not

This is Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP Kuala Lumpur, under DBKL — so the threshold is the FEDERAL TERRITORY one: RM1,000,000, for Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan, strata and landed alike, under the Ministry of Economy’s Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah effective 13 July 2022, with consent routed through the EPU rather than a state authority because Kuala Lumpur is a federal territory. National Land Code (Act 828) s.433B is also cited. Price is the operative statutory gate here, and that is unusually clear on this project: Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada is PRINTED on the filed advertisement, the developer’s own e-brochure independently prints Restriction in interest: NIL, and the land is freehold. A restriction in interest is the single strongest foreign-buyer signal a filing carries; here two of the developer’s own surfaces agree there is none. Do NOT read that onto any neighbouring project — different lot, different title. Now the part that is genuinely computable from the filing alone, and it is unusual: Blok C’s filed band is RM1,262,700 – RM1,664,050, whose MINIMUM is 1.26× the floor. So every one of Blok C’s 342 units sits ENTIRELY ABOVE the RM1,000,000 threshold, derivable from the filed advertisement with no estimate at all. And the part that is not: Blok A’s band (RM765,900 – RM1,151,150) and Blok B’s (RM803,850 – RM1,209,800) both STRADDLE the floor, and no per-type price table exists on any surface, so the NUMBER of Blok A and Blok B units clearing RM1,000,000 is UNKNOWABLE. This page says so and does not estimate it. And the standing caution: a threshold is a threshold. Stating it is not stating that a foreign buyer is therefore eligible. EPU consent, the developer’s own terms and the financing side all sit outside anything any document read for this page covers, the threshold bites on the price of the transaction in front of you rather than on a filed band, and a Malaysian lawyer is the right person to confirm the route.

Not published, therefore not on this page — and the document that would close each one

This is the honest half of the page and it is long, because for a 940-unit completed condominium the published record is thin. The project’s own site address, street frontage, lot or PT number, mukim and section. The filed advertisement prints only the DEVELOPER’S address; the register prints only a coordinate pair; the only lot WCT publishes belongs to its own sales gallery and is not the project’s. Closed by: a strata or master title search, the sale and purchase agreement’s Schedule H property particulars, or a DBKL planning submission quoting the lot. Any filed built-up schedule at all — no type code, no built-up, no bedroom count, no bathroom count appears in the filed advertisement. Closed by: the SPA’s Schedule H floor-plan annexure, a developer price list, or the strata plan. Which marketed layout sits in which block, beyond the register’s own bilik: 3, 4 on the Blok C row. Closed by: a price list keyed by block, or the strata plan. The TOTAL car-park bay count, the car-park levels and the per-layout allocation. Closed by: the approved building plan BP S3 OSC 2022 2492 (19), or the strata plan’s accessory-parcel schedule. The facilities, at all, and the level each one sits on — the developer lists NONE for 940 units and one publisher names one gymnasium. Closed by: the approved building plan, the developer’s FULL brochure (only a “simplified” one is published), or a site visit. The lift provision — the fact strip’s “8 Lifts Per Floor” is implausible as worded and no lift total is published by anyone. Closed by: the approved building plan, or the management body. The parcel area as a FILED figure — Keluasan Tanah is not printed and only one portal’s acreage exists. Closed by: the land title, a DBKL development order, or the listed parent’s land-bank schedule. The licensee’s company registration number, printed two ways in one document and nowhere else. Closed by: an SSM company profile, or the parent’s audited subsidiary list. Whether the 288 unsold units are still unsold today, and whether any are being sold as completed stock. Closed by: a current KPKT return, or the listed parent’s quarterly results. WHY no advertising permit has been issued since 8 September 2025 while stock remains. Closed by: KPKT, or the developer. Tenure detail beyond “freehold” — the register’s pegangan field is empty on all three of this licence’s registrations and only the filing says Pegangan Kekal. Closed by: the land title. The main contractor, architect, C&S and M&E consultants, and any QLASSIC score — the filed advertisement names no consultants at all. Closed by: a Bursa contract announcement, or the CIDB QLASSIC register. Maintenance commencement, the sinking-fund rate as a separate figure, the defect-liability window as applied, and the JMB or management-corporation handover position. Closed by: the SPA, or the first management-body meeting papers. Any corporate award for this project. Closed by: the listed parent’s awards page, which was not reached. A verified Chinese name for OUG, Taman Overseas Union, Awan Besar, Sri Petaling, Bukit Jalil or Seputeh. Closed by: one question to Louis, who works this corridor in Chinese daily. Until then those names stay in Latin script on the Chinese page, because a Chinese place name is a fact to look up and not a transliteration to invent. And one more thing a reader is owed up front: EVERY third-party cross-check except one. Exactly ONE third-party publisher covers this project. Where this page cites a publisher it is that single source, no figure of theirs is corroborated by a second portal, and this page does not imply otherwise. A source that exists alone cannot be tested for independence at all. Louis will ask the developer for every item on this list rather than estimate one of them.

Why this page carries no photographs and no floor plans

This page has no imagery at all, and the reason is a measurement rule rather than a shortage of files. Twenty-eight candidate assets were inventoried on the developer’s own host — nineteen scoped to this project and nine to the township — and not ONE could be accepted, because that host publishes no pixel dimensions by any route. There is no media index, no width in the file path, no browsable directory listing, and a fetch returns a status code rather than a measurable body. An image that cannot be MEASURED cannot clear a minimum-width rule, and “probably big enough” is not a measurement. The cost is real and worth naming: SIX well-captioned floor plans were lost to this. Each one carries its type code, built-up, bedroom and bathroom count printed directly above it on the developer’s own page AND the same type code inside its own filename — two independently agreeing legs per file, which is the best subject evidence this kind of asset offers. They were declined anyway. What was NOT done, and this is the part that matters: nothing was substituted. No stock photograph. No render whose subject nobody states — the developer’s gallery holds eleven numbered files under a single heading reading “OUR GALLERY”, with no caption and no alternative text on any of them, so their subjects are simply unknown and guessing one would be worse than publishing none. No township masterplan render either, because a township render shows land that is largely NOT this project and partly not built. And one specific refusal by name: the cover render of the OTHER registration on this licence sits in a neighbouring directory on the same host and appears on the same township page, beside this project’s. It is a different registration, a different filed product class and a different delivery schedule, and it does not appear here. The right asset for this building is a PHOTOGRAPH, because it is finished. Renders are the wrong asset class for a completed condominium. Ask Louis: he will send site photographs, the six type plans and the site plan from his own project folder.

What this page does not publish, and why

Louis Koh is a registered estate agent with IQI Realty Sdn Bhd, and his firm’s own project materials carry commercially restricted terms that may never be made public. So this page carries no discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion or freebie, and no commission figure — not one of those appears anywhere on it, in either language. It also carries no yield, return-on-investment or rental-return FIGURE of any kind, and no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate. On this project that is an easy rule to keep: no yield, return, leaseback or guaranteed-rental claim of ANY kind, with or without a figure, was found on any surface read — there was nothing to withhold and nothing to describe, and that clean outcome is worth recording. Three specific items DO exist elsewhere and are withheld here, and the page names which kind each one is, because the kind is the point. One: the filed advertisement carries a Diskaun Bumiputera field, and WCT’s own publicly downloadable simplified e-brochure prints a value in it. The FIELD is recorded; the VALUE is withheld in full and must never be reproduced, in either language, on any surface. The hazard here is unusual — the developer publishes it itself, in a PDF linked from its own project page — and that does not make it publishable by Louis. Two: the single third-party publisher prints a “from RM___” figure that sits BELOW the filed advertisement’s statutory minimum of RM765,900 while sitting above the register’s launch minimum of RM643,000. THE FIGURE IS WITHHELD. This is a new shape: a figure below one filed statutory surface and above the other, because this project has TWO legally filed minima that mean different things. It is treated as sub-minimum and withheld, because the buyer facing remaining stock faces the HIGHER of the two. One publisher carries it and no independent corroboration exists — the independence test cannot even be run on a single source. Three: the same publisher derives an estimated monthly instalment from that withheld figure. THE INSTALMENT FIGURE IS ALSO WITHHELD, as a vector for the price it is derived from. It is not itself a restricted category; it is withheld on derivation. What IS published, and labelled every time: the TWO legally filed price bands — the KPKT register’s component LAUNCH bands and the filed advertisement’s REMAINING-STOCK bands as at 8 August 2024 — each per block rather than per unit, each with its source and its date, and each carrying the same caveat: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. Also published: the public policy threshold of RM1,000,000, and a maintenance rate explicitly labelled a charge and attributed to the single publisher that prints it. For the price of a specific unit there is exactly one real source: the developer’s current price list and the sale and purchase agreement. Ask Louis, and he will get it in writing.

How this page is filed, and the taxonomy question that is flagged rather than answered

This building is COMPLETE, with a CCC and a register vacant-possession date of 30 May 2025, and it simultaneously carries about 288 units of DEVELOPER primary stock under a LAPSED advertising permit and a LIVE developer licence. That shape does not fit either of the usual status labels. It is NOT a new launch: vacant possession has happened, peratusSiap is 100 and the permit lapsed in September 2025. A new-launch label turns on vacant possession being in the FUTURE, and here it is in the past. It is NOT a subsale either, at least not for the stock this page is about: the remaining units are the DEVELOPER’S, sold on an HDA Jadual H sale and purchase agreement with the section 7A housing development account and the statutory defect liability period — not a sub-purchaser’s resale. A resale and letting market does of course exist for the 652 units already sold, and that is a different transaction with different protections. So the honest description is “a completed condominium with developer primary stock remaining”, and this page carries that in words rather than pretending a label fits. The built-form filing — Rumah Pangsa/Kondo on the register and Kondominium (FASA R4) on the advertisement — is what the page states, and it says explicitly that this is a CONDOMINIUM and not a serviced apartment, because another registration on this same licence is filed Pangsapuri Servis and the two must never be read onto each other. The site’s category labels are a blunter instrument than the filings are, and that gap is flagged here for Louis to decide rather than decided quietly in a label.

The Maple Residences — frequently asked questions

Other Kuala Lumpur pages built the same way — and nothing crosses between them

Published 15 October 2026 · last verified 15 October 2026 · registers read 15 October 2026. Sources: the public KPKT TEDUH register developer record for code 14379 and the project record 14379-2, with the serial walk continued to a client error on 14379-4 against bilanganProjek: 3 and a same-session positive control confirming the endpoint was healthy; the filed BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN advertisement particulars for 14379-2, whose own document path dates it 8 August 2024 and whose URL was read out of the register’s own iklan array rather than constructed; the GreenRE certification register across all four tiers, with each tier’s own date window recorded; the Federal Territories’ own affordable-housing register, paged rather than searched; the developer’s own project page, township page, contact page and simplified e-brochure (V05.09.2023); and the single third-party publisher that covers this project — the only one that exists, so nothing on this page is corroborated by a second portal and this page does not imply that it is. No figure, acreage, distance, rating, award, price or image on this page comes from any other registration on this licence, from any other development by this group, or from any neighbouring page on this site. · This page carries no imagery at all, deliberately: the developer’s host publishes no pixel dimensions by any route, so none of twenty-eight candidate assets — including six well-captioned floor plans — could be measured, and an unmeasured image is not an accepted one. Nothing was substituted. · Marketing information, not an offer. Confirm every figure against the register, the filed advertisement, the title and a current valuation before you commit.