SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1, Subang Jaya — registered RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2, KPKT project 31334-1: 928 serviced apartments on Jadual H in two 44-storey towers, and the contractual construction period was extended from 36 months to 56 — +20 months, approved at 0.00% built. The developer publishes the revised date, 10 March 2031, and credit is due for that — while the original 10 July 2029 date and the extension itself exist ONLY in the KPKT register

Nine things about SCP Westfield Residences that no brochure and no portal tells you

Each of these came out of a register read, a state government document, an arithmetic check or a complete-table read — not out of marketing copy. Four of the nine are credits to the developer, and they are printed as plainly as the five that are not.

Four unit types, 928 units — and not one built-up figure on this page comes from a filed schedule

Read this before any size figure below. The single filed statutory advertisement for this scheme is an image-only scan with no text layer, the second brochure file and the newspaper advertisement file both return errors, and the register exposes no built-up field. So the filed built-up schedule CANNOT BE READ, and every size in circulation for this project is a MARKETING figure. What the register does give is the unit mix — A 140 · B 428 · C 216 · D 144 = 928, closing against components of 464 + 464 — and the bedroom and bathroom RANGES, bilik: 1, 3, 4 and bilik air: 1, 2, 3, which establish that there is no two-bedroom type in the building but do not assign a count to a type. And the headline fact of this section: the marketed range of 768 to 1,008 sq ft leaves out 140 units, 15.1% of the building.

Type A — 140 units, the state-controlled allocation

140 of 928 units · 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom on the register’s own ranges · the RM270,000 Selangor state-controlled affordable price attaches to this type · absent from every marketed size range

140 units15.1% of the buildingLPHS controlled priceRestricted stockNo built-up publishedRegister ranges onlyNot in the 768–1,008 range

No built-up figure for Type A is published by any source, and this page prints none against the drawing. The only surface that prints 550 sq ft at all is the group’s project page, which lists four sizes with no type labels. Our reading that the smallest of those four belongs to Type A is an INFERENCE — from the ordering of that list, from the register’s bedroom range requiring a one-bedroom type, and from Type A being the 140-unit affordable allocation. It is probable; it is not filed, and this page will not promote it into a specification. What IS established: the statutory minimum price of RM270,000 attaches to this allocation, and LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price list of 10 September 2026 names the scheme, the licensee, the district and that figure in one row. So these 140 units are restricted stock with eligibility conditions administered by LPHS — income, first-home and registration conditions that NO source reached states. They are not open-market stock, the RM270,000 is not an entry price for a general buyer, and this page never writes “from RM270,000”. Ask for the LPHS eligibility terms in writing before anything else.

Ask about the LPHS Type A eligibility terms

Type B — 428 units, the volume type

428 of 928 units — 46.1% of the building · marketed built-up 768 sq ft · 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms · marketed starting price from RM636,000

428 units768 sq ft (marketed)3 bed2 bathFrom RM636,000 (marketed)Above the filed minimumThe only fully-printed type

Type B is the only type for which any one source prints the built-up, the bedrooms and the bathrooms together as a set — the publisher’s listing panel gives 768 sq ft, 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The register corroborates the ranges and not the assignment: bilik: 1, 3, 4 permits a three-bedroom type and forbids a two-bedroom one. The marketed starting price of RM636,000 sits ABOVE the filed statutory minimum and inside the filed maximum of RM866,000, which is the normal and honest case — and worth saying, because this series has caught developer panels advertising below their own filed statutory floor on five other projects. Nothing below the floor exists anywhere on this project. What is not published for this or any type: the car-park allocation, the balcony or yard area, any accessory parcel, and which of the two towers and which floors it sits on.

Ask for the Type B plan and the price list

Type C — 216 units, three bedrooms plus a study

216 of 928 units · marketed built-up 868 sq ft · 3 bedrooms + study, 2 bathrooms as marketed · marketed starting price from RM700,000

216 units868 sq ft (marketed)3 bed + study2 bathFrom RM700,000 (marketed)Publisher table onlyAbove the filed minimum

The built-up, the bedroom count and the starting price for Type C come from one table in the publisher’s SPONSORED article, and this page labels that origin every time it uses it. The “+ study” is a marketing description: the register’s own ranges count bedrooms, not study rooms, and the filed schedule cannot be read. The RM700,000 starting price sits above the filed statutory minimum and below the filed maximum. No source states which type reaches the RM866,000 filed maximum, so this page does not guess: the maximum is a scheme-wide figure and nothing more. The drawing beside this entry carries the weaker of the two image grades used on this page — see the note under the gallery below.

Ask for the Type C plan and the price list

Type D — 144 units, the largest marketed type

144 of 928 units · marketed built-up 1,008 sq ft · 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms as marketed · marketed starting price from RM797,000

144 units1,008 sq ft (marketed)4 bed3 bathFrom RM797,000 (marketed)Top of the register rangesAbove the filed minimum

Type D is the only type whose marketed bedroom and bathroom counts sit at the TOP of the register’s own ranges — bilik: 1, 3, 4 and bilik air: 1, 2, 3 — which is a genuine corroboration of the 4-bed, 3-bath description even though the per-type schedule itself cannot be read. The marketed starting price of RM797,000 is RM69,000 below the filed statutory maximum (our own arithmetic), so the top of the filed range is plausibly a higher-floor or larger Type D — but no source says so and this page does not assert it. What no source publishes for any type: the filed built-up, the filed bed and bath schedule, the car park, the accessory parcel, the fixture schedule and the tower assignment.

Ask for the Type D plan and the price list

The grade of the four drawings above, stated plainly, because it is one step weaker than the renders further down this page. All four come from the project’s own single-project image library, and the library’s own title for each one confirms the TYPE CODE — type-a to type-d — but does NOT name the project. Their identification as this project’s plans therefore rests on their placement in a single-project library that passed a sibling-contamination test (a targeted search for the neighbouring scheme’s brand returned an empty result against a same-endpoint positive control that returned 22 real project-named items, and a full library sweep found nothing but site chrome). That is legitimate here and it is weaker than a title that names the project, so this page says so rather than leaving you to assume. Two further filename-level findings worth carrying. Types B and C exist in a later revised generation and Types A and D do not — which is evidence that B and C were revised at some point and A and D were not, so the four drawings should not be read as one generation. And the Type A drawing carries no area figure on this page at all, for the reason given in its own entry: no text source states Type A’s built-up. What to ask for in writing: the filed built-up schedule, the filed bedroom and bathroom schedule, the car-park provision per type, the accessory-parcel position, and the tower and floor assignment — none of which any source publishes, and all of which exist on documents the developer holds.

Developer imagery — eleven renders from a library that passed the contamination test, and 0.00% of it is built

What these images are, and the test that lets this page carry them. Every image on this page is an ARTIST’S IMPRESSION of a building that the KPKT register reports as 0.00% built on both towers at 13 October 2026. None of them is a photograph of anything that exists, and every caption says so. They are the developer’s own, taken from its project microsite’s open content-management library, read in full on 13 October 2026. Eleven reach the stronger grade, because this library’s own title names BOTH the project and the subject — the strongest grade this series awards. The four layout drawings above reach a weaker grade, because their titles confirm the type code and not the project, and that is stated under them. Alt text is EMPTY on every single item on the source host, so the grade rests on the title and nothing else — and none of this developer’s own alt text was copied, for a specific reason: on the group’s own site, one Westfield image carries the Open Graph alt text Mosaic 2, which is the SIBLING phase’s internal brand. And the test that matters here more than on any project in this series. The sibling phase sits 211 metres away with two near-identical 44-storey towers under a different licensee, so the real risk was a library quietly carrying the building next door. We ran the contamination test: targeted searches for the sibling’s brand and for another of the group’s developments both returned EMPTY arrays, against a same-endpoint positive control that returned 22 real project-named items, and a full date-ascending sweep returned 23 further items that were every one site chrome — icons, placeholders, a menu logo, form backgrounds. Not one item named another development. An empty result alone proves nothing; an empty result beside a working control on the same endpoint is a finding. So this is a clean single-project library, and it is only the third this series has found. What was refused, and why: an earlier generation of the aerial render, because it is a superseded version of the one at the top of this page and the two must never appear together; three group-site images whose titles confirm the project but establish no subject, one of which is the item carrying the Mosaic 2 alt text; the logos; the site chrome; three landing videos and the audio file; the e-brochure PDF, which the host does not serve; a 360-tour link, which is a tour and not an image; and every asset on the sibling phase’s own website, without exception. Dates were checked, not assumed: every render carries a content-management date of 6 to 10 July 2026 — after the 2 July 2026 advertising permit and days before the launch — so no image here is a render of an earlier, re-planned scheme. A folder path is not an upload date, and on the group’s own site files served from a 2021 folder carry content-management dates of July 2026, which is exactly why the date field is read and the folder ignored.

USJ 1, 47600 Subang Jaya — Daerah Petaling, under Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya

Read this before the map, because three separate location errors are in circulation and one of them is the publisher’s own. The filed coordinates are 3.058651, 101.595667, from the KPKT register. The local authority is Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya, settled from the filed approved building-plan reference MBSJ.BGN.BP1.600-1/10/5/11(22) on the developer’s own statutory panel — the plan prefix, which is the only route this page treats as strong — and corroborated by the Approving Authority field on the same panel. The district is Daerah Petaling, and the KPKT register does NOT give it: daerah is a bare -. It comes instead from LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price list of 10 September 2026, which files this scheme under Petaling — a state government document supplying the field the federal register leaves blank. The mukim is absent from the register entirely, absent from the panel and absent from every portal, and it is not estimated here. Error one: a major portal files this Subang Jaya project in SHAH ALAM. Its own canonical URL puts the project under selangor/shah_alam/ and its meta description says “Shah Alam, Selangor” — against its own location block and its own statutory panel on the same page, both of which say USJ 1, Subang Jaya and Majlis Bandaraya Subang Jaya. Both places sit in Selangor Zone 1, so the foreign-buyer floor is unaffected — but the council, the assessment rates and the client’s own searches are not. This page is filed under Subang Jaya and not Shah Alam. Error two, and it is a trap rather than a mistake: the only address the developer prints in its own footer is a sales office inside a shopping mall on Persiaran Kewajipan — not the site, not the licensee’s registered office in Bangsar South, and not its business address in Petaling Jaya. Four addresses are in circulation for this one company and only one of them is the building. Error three: the two phases’ postcodes disagree. The portal gives 47600 for this phase and 47500 for the sibling 211 metres away. One of them is wrong and no source resolves it. And a trap this page refuses to walk into: MPSJ and MBSJ are ONE council renamed in 2020. The sibling phase’s filed plan reference still reads MPSJ because its building plan was approved before the city-council upgrade; this one reads MBSJ because it was approved after. A reader seeing two prefixes across two phases of one masterplan must not conclude two authorities.

RESIDENSI DAMAISARI 2 — KPKT project 31334-1, licensee KIARA SQUARE SDN. BHD. 201801038393 (1300424-H), marketed as SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1

The row below is the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for project 31334-1, read on 13 October 2026, set beside the developer’s own statutory advertising and sales permit panel. The two agree on every field that appears on both — the licence number and its validity, the permit number and its validity, the registered project name, the approving authority, the tenure, the chargee, the unit total, the type split, the storey count and the price range. That is unusual enough in this series to be worth stating as a credit rather than passed over. Three fields are in the register and not on the panel (the original 36-month contract period, the original vacant possession date and the extension of time), two are on the panel and not in the register (the company registration number and the approved building-plan reference), and one is on neither: Sekatan Kepentingan.

Source and date. KPKT KPKT TEDUH register project record 31334-1 and licensee record for developer code 31334, both read 13 October 2026; the developer’s own statutory advertising and sales permit panel on its project microsite, read the same day; and LPHS Selangor’s controlled-price project list, Tarikh Kemaskini 10 September 2026, for the affordable-price row and for the district. The filed statutory advertisement on the KPKT file server EXISTS and CANNOT BE READ — it is an image-only scan with no text layer — and the second brochure file and the newspaper advertisement file both return errors, so there is no second generation to compare it with. Every figure in this table is therefore either a register field or a field on the developer’s own statutory panel. None of it is transcribed from the filing, because the filing cannot be transcribed.

What this table is and is not. It is the public statutory record plus a developer-published statutory panel, read on one date and reproduced with that date attached. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and the price range in it is the filed statutory Unit Selling Price minimum and maximum for the scheme, not a per-unit price and not a current asking figure. The RM270,000 minimum is a state-controlled affordable price attaching to 140 restricted units and must not be read as an open-market entry price. Prices, availability and the contractual terms come from the current price list and the statutory sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery, and from nothing on this page. Registry fields change without notice: re-read 31334-1 before you sign anything.

The extension of time — 36 months became 56, and both halves of the story are real

The facts first, as filed. Schedule H with tempohAsal: 36 Bulan; first sale and purchase agreement 10 July 2026; original contractual vacant possession 10 July 2029; then pindaanTempohSerahKosong: Ya, tempohTambahanDiluluskan: 20 Bulan, tempohPembinaanBaharu: 56 Bulan, and serahKosongBaharuIkutPjbPertama: 10 March 2031. Both registered components read peratus: 0.00 at 13 October 2026. So the contractual construction period was lengthened by 20 months — 56% longer than the statutory 36 it started from — before a single percent of the building existed, weeks after the first sale. By this series’ count it is the fourth-largest extension recorded and the earliest. The credit, and it is the cleanest instance this series has found. Every developer surface prints the REVISED date: the statutory advertising and sales permit panel, the project microsite and all three of the publisher’s records for this project print “March 2031”. The developer had the easier option of printing its original 2029 date and did not take it, so the marketed completion date IS the governing contractual date. This page has repeatedly had to report the opposite on other projects, where a filing or a portal still carried a superseded original date after an extension had been approved. The gap, and it is why this section exists. The original 36-month period, the 10 July 2029 date and the fact that a 20-month extension was approved at all appear on NO public surface whatever. Not the filed advertisement, which cannot be read; not the statutory panel; not the microsite; not any portal record; not a press report. The KPKT register is the only place in the world where a buyer can learn that this scheme’s contractual construction period is 56 months rather than 36. Nobody is contradicted here — nobody mentions it. What this page will NOT say. It will not say late: status.keseluruhan reads Lancar and Lewat, the register’s own late flag, was looked for and is NOT present. It will not predict: about 95 days, or ≈5.6%, of the revised 56-month programme had elapsed at the research date against 0.00% built (our own arithmetic on two filed dates), the original date is 2.7 years away and the revised date 4.4 years away. And it will not run the float test, because it cannot: no main contractor, no contract sum and no construction commencement date is published by anybody, so the question does the build programme fit the contractual date? has no inputs. Elapsed-versus-built is the only test available and that is the one printed above. One thing a buyer should be told and nobody says. Under Schedule H the delivery period runs from EACH purchaser’s OWN agreement date. The register’s 10 March 2031 is 56 months from the FIRST agreement, dated 10 July 2026. A buyer signing in 2027 is contractually owed vacant possession 56 months from their own signature, not on 10 March 2031 — so the marketed date matches the first purchaser’s position and not necessarily yours. Get your own date in writing, computed from your own agreement.

Price: three surfaces, one range, and the one figure a reader will misread

The filed statutory Unit Selling Price range for this scheme is RM270,000.00 to RM866,000.00. Both registered components carry that identical range, and the developer’s own statutory panel prints the same two figures — to the sen, on three surfaces, with no splice, no orphan figure and no third row. This series has caught spliced registry ranges on four other projects and orphan sen on two of them, so a clean one is named as readily as a bad one. It is published here as what it is: the statutory minimum and maximum from the legally filed advertisement particulars. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. Now the figure that will be misread if nobody explains it. RM270,000 is a Harga Mampu Milik — a Selangor STATE-CONTROLLED affordable price — and not an open-market floor. The confirmation is independent and it is a state government document: LPHS Selangor’s own controlled-price project list, Tarikh Kemaskini 10 September 2026, carries a row reading Residensi Damaisari 2 · Kiara Square Sdn Bhd · Daerah Petaling · Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan · RM270,000. Three further legs support the reading: the same figure is the minimum on three other registrations in this developer’s licence family; the neighbouring phase’s own readable filing prints the identical RM270,000 against the label Pangsapuri Perkhidmatan Mampu Milik, separately from its open-market rows; and the same RM270,000 recurs across unrelated Petaling schemes of the same product class on the LPHS list, which makes it a state ceiling for a product class and not a developer’s offer. So the 140 Type A units are restricted stock with eligibility conditions administered by LPHS — income, first-home and registration conditions that NO source reached states — and they are not general-market stock. This page therefore never writes “from RM270,000”, “prices start at RM270,000” or any construction that invites an open-market buyer to read a controlled price as theirs. For contrast, and because a reader may be comparing pages on this site: one other Selangor page here has the same structure and says so, and another has no such row at all and says so explicitly. The difference is real and it is stated rather than smoothed over. The open-market figures, labelled as marketed and not as filed: Type B from RM636,000, Type C from RM700,000, Type D from RM797,000, all publisher-sourced. All three sit ABOVE the filed statutory minimum and inside the filed maximum, so the below-floor test does not bite in either direction — and no below-minimum figure exists anywhere on this project, on any surface reached. That is a genuinely clean position and this page credits it: the same test has caught developer panels and portals advertising below their own filed statutory floor on five other projects in this series. And one more arithmetic test, which also passes. The published gross development value is RM597.58 million. The sum of the published per-type starting prices is 140 × RM270,000 + 428 × RM636,000 + 216 × RM700,000 + 144 × RM797,000 = RM575,976,000 (our own arithmetic). So the announced value sits 3.75% ABOVE the sum of the minima and 25.6% below 928 × the filed maximum — comfortably inside the filed range, with no stale-generation signal. The same test has failed on three other projects in this series, where an announced value fell BELOW the sum of the filed minima and exposed a superseded price generation. This is its first clean pass in several projects, and a pass deserves printing as much as a failure. A separate, older figure exists and must not be confused with it: a 2019 press report gave RM800 million for the whole six-acre parcel, which both phases together have long passed. Carry it with its 2019 date and never as this project’s value.

The marketed size range omits 140 units — 15.1% of the building

Every marketing surface gives the sizes as 768 to 1,008 square feet — the microsite, the publisher’s listing, the publisher’s project record and its sponsored article. That range excludes Type A entirely. The filed unit mix is A 140 · B 428 · C 216 · D 144, it closes to 928 twice over, and the 140 Type A units are about 550 square feet — more than one unit in seven. So a buyer reading any brochure for this project would conclude that the smallest unit in the building is 768 sq ft. It is not. And the omitted units are precisely the ones the RM270,000 state-controlled price attaches to, which is what makes the omission matter twice. How the 550 figure is held, honestly. The only surface that prints 550 at all is the group’s own project page, which lists four sizes with NO type labels. Our reading that the smallest belongs to Type A is an INFERENCE — from the ordering of that list, from the register’s bedroom range bilik: 1, 3, 4 requiring a one-bedroom type and forbidding a two-bedroom one, and from Type A being the 140-unit affordable allocation. It is probable. It is not filed, and this page does not print it as a specification or attach it to a drawing. Why no filed figure settles it: the filed built-up schedule for this scheme CANNOT BE READ. The one statutory advertisement published on the KPKT file server is an image-only scan with no text layer, the second brochure file and the newspaper advertisement file both return errors, and the register exposes no built-up field. So every built-up figure in circulation for this project — including 768, 868 and 1,008 — is a MARKETING figure, and this page labels them that way everywhere. This is the exact inverse of a finding this series made elsewhere, where a FILED schedule omitted part of a building that the marketing carried. Here the MARKETING omits part of the building and the REGISTER is what proves it is there. Check a marketed range against the filed unit count in both directions, every time.

Foreign buyers: zero of 928 clear the floor, and the title clause cannot be read

Leg one, the zone and the floor. Selangor Zone 1 — Petaling, Gombak, Hulu Langat, Sepang and Klang — carries a minimum purchase price for a non-citizen of RM2,000,000, on a three-source published consensus including IQI’s own guide. Zone 2 (Kuala Selangor, Kuala Langat) is also RM2,000,000; Zone 3 (Hulu Selangor, Sabak Bernam) is RM1,000,000. Note that the Selangor figure is DOUBLE the Kuala Lumpur one, and that this licensee’s registered office is in Kuala Lumpur — a reader who took the state from the company’s address would halve the floor. The district is Daerah Petaling, so Zone 1 applies. Leg two, price — and this is the leg that decides it. The highest price filed anywhere in this scheme is RM866,000, which is 43.3% of the RM2,000,000 floor (our own arithmetic on the filed maximum and the published floor). So ZERO of 928 units reach it, and it is not close: the dearest unit in the building is short of the floor by RM1,134,000. Not one marketing or portal source for this project says so. Leg three, title — and here both of this series’ usual bars are absent. Schedule H plus an advertising permit tail of -(S) means strata title, and Selangor permits foreign purchase of strata and landed-strata property in the main zones. So the individual-title bar that defeats a landed scheme does not arise here. But Sekatan Kepentingan — the single strongest foreign-buyer signal this page knows — CANNOT BE READ on this project. The filed advertisement has no text layer, the register exposes no such field, and the developer’s own statutory panel omits the line entirely. This page therefore says the clause cannot be read. It does NOT say that no restriction is filed, because those are different statements — and this series has already proved the cost of confusing them, on a licence where one phase reads tidak boleh dipindah milik and the next reads boleh dipindah milik: one dropped word, opposite meanings. Have the clause read on the title search before you pay anything, and get the Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor position in writing. And a fourth bar that has nothing to do with nationality. The 140 Type A units at the RM270,000 state-controlled price are Selangor affordable-housing stock on LPHS’s own controlled-price register. Affordable allocations carry eligibility conditions — income ceilings, first-home and residency or registration requirements administered by LPHS — and the terms for THIS scheme are not published in any source reached. So this page states that those 140 units are not open stock and that eligibility must be confirmed with LPHS, and it does not describe the conditions, because no source reached states them.

The filing EXISTS and CANNOT BE READ — and the precise list of what that costs

This is the most consequential structural fact about the paperwork on this project. The KPKT file server carries exactly one filed statutory advertisement for project 31334-1, it is the file the register’s own filing array points to, and it is an IMAGE-ONLY PDF with no machine-readable text layer: nothing can be transcribed from it. The second brochure file and the newspaper advertisement file both return errors, and the newer batch path form cannot even be constructed, because the register’s filing array lists a single file in the older form. So there is no second generation to compare, and the one generation that exists cannot be read. This page distinguishes three categories, because a buyer is entitled to know which one applies. NOT FILED — the field exists in the register and is blank or zero: daerah is a bare - (the district came from LPHS’s state list instead); keluasan is 0 mps, so no land area is filed at all and the 2.9 acres is a developer-supplied marketing figure; lamanWeb is -, although the project has a live website; there is no project-level peratusSiap, only the two component figures; and the mukim is absent from the record entirely, which is not the same as blank. NOT OBTAINABLE — the filing would carry it and the filing cannot be read: Sekatan Kepentingan; the car-park provision; the filed built-up schedule by type; the filed bedroom and bathroom schedule (the register’s ranges are a partial substitute and not an assignment); the lot or PT number and the title reference; the fixture schedule, and therefore the kitchen-sink line that this page normally uses to test a two-in-one claim — no such claim is made here, so nothing turns on it, and the neighbouring phase’s own dual-key type is the SIBLING’s and must not migrate; and any consultant block inside the filing. NOT PUBLISHED BY ANYBODY: the main contractor, the contract sum and the construction commencement date; the gross floor area and the plot ratio, so no independent check on the acreage is possible; the licensee’s shareholding and holding company, and any land vendor; any Baki Unit or unsold-stock figure, which is why the published “50% take-up” claim cannot be tested; and the official built-up of Type A, which is 140 of 928 units. One path-form note worth keeping: this is a 2026 filing sitting under the OLDER path form, which is the fifth confirmation in this series that the path form does not track the filing date. And a discipline statement, because the temptation was real. The neighbouring phase’s filed advertisement DOES have a text layer and is the nearest readable statutory document in this licence family. It was read once, for one purpose only — to establish the LABEL that the group’s own filings put on the identical RM270,000 row — and not one of this project’s own particulars was taken from it. The two schemes’ filed built-ups, price ranges, plan references, extensions and completion dates all differ.

The group’s delivery record, which tests its own headline claim — and the one record the claim excludes

The group’s company profile states, verbatim: “All SCP completed projects are handed over to purchasers within the scheduled time frame or earlier.” That is a testable claim, the register is the only place it can be tested, and no consumer source publishes any of what follows. We walked every registration in this developer’s licence family. Four carry a completion certificate. A 294-unit Kuala Lumpur scheme was certified about 166 days BEFORE its original contractual date, with no extension taken at all. A 764-unit scheme beat its original date by about 52 days while holding a 12-month extension it never consumed. An 899-unit scheme beat its original date by about 202 days while holding a 4-month extension it never consumed. And a 681-unit Kuala Lumpur tower missed its ORIGINAL contractual date by about 136 days — it needed a +17-month extension to be “on time”, and it landed about 382 days inside the revised date. So the honest scoring is this. Four of four were handed over inside the date that legally bound the developer, which makes the claim true as a statement about governing dates. Three of four also beat the ORIGINAL date in the agreements purchasers first signed, two of them while holding unconsumed extensions — by the standards of this series, a good record. One did not. Read against original contractual dates, the claim is true of three of four and not of the fourth. And the sentence silently excludes one more record. A 350-unit SoHo scheme on this group’s own licence family reached 82.27%, carries an advertising permit marked Telah Dibatalkan — cancelled — a component status of Sakit, and has no completion certificate and no vacant possession date. It is not a “completed project”, so the sentence is literally consistent with it. With attribution and no causal claim: The Edge Malaysia reported on 28 October 2019 that the group bought back all the SoHo units in that building and re-planned the tower as serviced residences under an international operator. This page sets the register flags beside that report, makes no causal claim, and prints what the register says about THIS licensee: statusPemaju: Aktif, mempunyaiKesalahan: null, projek_sakit_count: 0, projek_terbengkalai_count: 0 and an EMPTY Rekod Lesen Terdahulu. Why it is here at all: a buyer searching this developer will find that history, and the page is more trustworthy for addressing it than for omitting it. And nothing in it may be presented as this project’s own record. This project has none: 0.00% built.

Licence, permit and the (N) question — three credits and one thing nobody can settle

Three publishable credits, all of them chronology. One: the licence pre-dates the first sale by 108 days — licence issued 24 March 2026, first sale and purchase agreement 10 July 2026 (our own arithmetic on two filed dates). This series has recorded a project where the licence issued about six months AFTER groundbreaking, so the right order is worth naming. Two: the advertising permit pre-dates the first sale by 8 days — issued 2 July 2026. Thin, and the right side of the line: selling began under a valid permit. Three: the permit history is EMPTY, so this is the first and only permit the scheme has ever held and an unpermitted interval is IMPOSSIBLE by construction — the exact inverse of a project this series found with a 13½-month gap in its permit cover. Two more register readings in the same family. (N) on the LICENCE number means first issue, never renewed, which is consistent on every leg: the licence is seven months old, it carries exactly one registered project, and its Rekod Lesen Terdahulu is empty. And an empty previous-licence record is a POSITIVE finding rather than a blank — it makes an unpermitted interval impossible at licence level too. Now the thing nobody can settle, recorded as printed and flagged as a question. The register’s own project field carries the advertising permit with an (N) suffix on a phase that is actively selling. This series’ standing note reads that the register marks (A) active and (N) inactive, which would be alarming here. The neighbouring phase’s record offers a cleaner reading, and it is recorded as a HYPOTHESIS and not a finding: that record carries its permit as (A) and current, while its own history carries the same permit number with (N), on the SAME dates, marked active but not the latest. A (N) row superseded by an (A) row bearing an identical number and identical dates reads much more like first issue followed by re-issue than like inactive followed by active. On that reading this project’s (N) simply means the permit has not yet been re-issued, which fits its empty history and its 3½-month age. KPKT publishes no key. So this page records the suffix as printed, flags it as a question, and will NOT tell a client the permit is “inactive” — the same register prints the scheme as Lancar and actively selling, and the developer is advertising under it. Ask the developer to confirm the permit’s status in writing; it is a one-line answer. And the free read that comes with it: the -(S) tail confirms strata title, which corroborates Pangsapuri Servis and Schedule H independently.

Green, awards and the near-misses this page refused

No green certification of any kind is obtainable for this project, and a green CLAIM is in circulation. What was checked: GreenRE’s certification register across all four tiers, plus the Bronze certification-entry list, queried on nineteen separate strings — the marketing name, the registered name, the licensee’s name words, the neighbouring phase’s brand, the town, the township abbreviation and six of the group’s other project and company names. No entry for this project or for this licensee, in any tier, provisional or final. Two limitations, stated rather than buried. The Platinum tier reads completely — 95 rows closing cleanly, the nineteenth consecutive clean run — so a Platinum negative here is a GENUINE clean negative. The Gold, Silver and Bronze tables truncate, so for those three the honest statement is only “no entry in the reachable portion”. And the Bronze certification-entry list covers 4 April 2024 to 9 December 2025 — the WRONG WINDOW for a scheme licensed in March 2026 and permitted in July 2026, so a 2026 certification would not appear in it at all. GBI’s own public directory is unreachable and proves nothing either way: that is INCONCLUSIVE and never a negative. The claim, and what it actually says. The publisher’s SPONSORED article states that the development “follows Green Building Index standards” and the same publisher’s project description repeats the phrase; the features named are EV charging and heat-insulating materials. That is TARGETING, not certification — and it is weaker than the usual version of this claim, because “follows … standards” asserts no application, no registration, no assessment and no rating level. The developer’s OWN microsite does not make the GBI claim at all; its sustainability wording is a feature tag and biophilic-design copy. So this page will not write “GBI-certified”, “green-certified” or “GreenRE” about this project in either language, and it records which surface says what. Awards: there are none for this project. No property, design, construction or sustainability award is claimed on any surface, and no QLASSIC score is published — unsurprising at 0.00% built. The only award anywhere on the group’s websites is an HR Asia employer award, carried in image alt text, with no category stated and the awarding body inferred from the name. It is a workplace award, not a property award. This page does not write “award-winning developer” — and neither does the developer, which is the correct behaviour and is credited here. Seventeen near-miss register rows were refused, every one a different licensee, and two deserve naming because they are the ones most likely to be borrowed by somebody else. A Subang Jaya city-centre scheme holds a Gold PROVISIONAL rating on the residential tool with a current date, and its licensee is literally named “(Subang)” — the most seductive row on this job, and a different developer and a different development. And a Kuala Lumpur hotel whose name differs from this project’s by two letters holds a Gold FINAL rating on a non-residential tool. Also refused: a Platinum-rated office tower named after the very transit station this project markets itself by; three residential rows matching the licensee’s own name word, all of them in Mont Kiara; a row matching the brand word of another of this group’s own projects; and every row matching the first five letters of the registered name, which happen to form one of the commonest place words in Malaysia. The rule that held throughout: refuse on licensee and tool code, never on brand. Two of the refused rows are projects that already have their own pages on this site, which is exactly how such a borrowing goes unnoticed — so nothing crosses, in either direction.

What this page does not publish, and why

This page withholds four classes of figure, and it names each one so that the withholding does not read as concealment. (1) The restricted family, as a matter of standing instruction. Nothing on this page carries a discount, a rebate, a nett price, a promotion of any kind, a commission figure, a freebie, an incentive, a leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate, or a yield or return projection. And on this project that list is unusually easy to honour, which is itself a finding: no price-adjustment package, no freebie, no leaseback, no guaranteed rental return and no yield projection appears on ANY surface reached for this scheme. For a launch-stage project that is a clean position, and this series owes a clean one a mention. (2) The ethnic-allocation figure. A Bumiputera price-adjustment field exists and is printed on the developer’s own statutory panel, and the publisher’s transcription of that panel reproduces it. The field’s EXISTENCE is stated here; its VALUE is withheld and appears nowhere on this page, in either language. It appears in no other place — not in the register, and not in the filed advertisement, which cannot be read at all. Ask the developer for it in writing if it applies to you; it is a document question, not a page question. (3) Figures that no source publishes. This page carries no car-park count, no lot or PT number, no mukim, no main contractor, no contract sum, no construction commencement date, no gross floor area, no plot ratio, no shareholding, no land vendor, no unsold-stock figure, no service-charge or sinking-fund rate, no Type A built-up as a specification, and no interest restriction in either direction. Each of those is listed above with the reason it is missing, and the reasons differ: some fields are blank in the register, some are on a filed document that cannot be read, and some are published by nobody at all. (4) Distances nobody publishes. About seventy distances ARE published by the developer and they are reproduced on this page with that origin attached and with the basis stated as undefined — because the developer does not state it. Where no source publishes a figure, this page publishes no figure: there is no distance here for any rail or bus-rapid-transit station, because the developer’s own seventy-row tables give none and the only figure in existence — a 180 m covered walkway — appears in sponsored editorial alone, with no statement of what it measures between. Nothing here is estimated, converted, rounded or read across from another project, including the three other Subang-area pages on this site. And one line on what this page is for. Every figure above is traced to a named published source and dated to the day it was read. Where two sources disagree, both are printed and the disagreement is named rather than resolved. Marketing information compiled from public records: not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.

SCP Westfield Residences @ USJ 1 — the questions, answered from the filed record

Nearby and comparable — and four names that are NOT this project

Published 13 October 2026 · last verified 13 October 2026 against the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register project record 31334-1 and the licensee record for developer code 31334, the developer’s own statutory advertising and sales permit panel, and LPHS Selangor’s controlled-price project list dated 10 September 2026. Marketing information, not an offer.