SENTRAL SUITES @ KL SENTRAL, Jalan Rozario / Jalan Chan Ah Tong, off Jalan Tun Sambanthan, Brickfields, 50470 Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP KUALA LUMPUR — a COMPLETED Apartmen Servis under Jadual H: 1,434 units in three towers, CCC 15 March 2023 — and registered as Suite Sentral, the marketing name with its two words REVERSED, under register code 14606-1

Why this page reads differently from every other page on this building

Three PropertyGuru records, three Edge-group articles, one Star-group feature and one third-party KPKT panel exist for Sentral Suites. Between them they disagree on the name, the storey count, the unit count, the land area, the completion year and the title. This page starts from the filed advertisement and the register, names the disagreement each time, and refuses by name the things that belong to other buildings.

The ten filed unit types — and ten of ten match the developer to the square foot

The filed advertisement carries a ten-row built-up AND car-park schedule, headed Jenis Unit (Tempat Letak Kereta). Every one of the ten filed built-ups is reproduced to the square foot by the developer’s own four type pages and by its e-brochure. This site names built-up discrepancies on project after project, so a clean ten-for-ten deserves to be said plainly: there is no built-up discrepancy on this project between the filing and the developer. The m² figures below are the developer’s own conversions, printed beside its own square footage. The bedroom and bathroom counts are MARKETING, because the register files 0 / 0 and the filing prints none. And no source anywhere publishes which type sits in which tower, a per-type unit count, or a per-type price.

Type A — Jenis A

650 sq ft · 60.40 sqm (developer’s own conversion) · filed car park 1 / 2 / Tandem

filed built-up 650matches to the sq ft1 bedroom (marketing)1 bathroom (marketing)

The entry type, and the one that sets the foreign-buyer question. The filed built-up is 650 and the developer prints 650 sq ft. The register files bedrooms and bathrooms as 0 / 0, so the one-bedroom, one-bathroom description is the developer’s and not a filed fact. Which tower it sits in is published by nobody.

Ask for this type’s filed schedule

No individually captioned plan for this type was published. The developer’s type page carries the A-family plan set; this page publishes only the four plans whose subject is established by filename and by the schedule printed beside them.

Type A1 — Jenis A1

653 sq ft · 60.65 sqm · filed car park 1 / 2

filed built-up 653matches to the sq ft1 bedroom (marketing)1 bathroom (marketing)

Three square feet larger than Type A on both the filing and the developer’s own page. Tandem parking is NOT offered on this row, while it is on three of the four other A-family rows — a distinction that exists only in the filed column, because the developer’s own pages do not carry a parking figure at all.

No individually captioned plan for this type was published. The corner plans sit inside the A-family set with no caption of their own.

Type Corner A — Jenis Penjuru A

724 sq ft · 67.30 sqm · filed car park 1 / 2 / Tandem

filed built-up 724matches to the sq ft1 + 1 bedrooms (marketing)1 bathroom (marketing)

The developer’s own room list for this type is “1 + 1” bedrooms with one bathroom — a study or utility room counted separately. The filing prints no bedroom count for any type, so the “+1” is the developer’s own description. This is the built-up The Edge reported a post-completion asking figure against; that figure is not published here.

No individually captioned plan for this type was published.

Type Corner A1 — Jenis Penjuru A1

765 sq ft · 71.10 sqm · filed car park 1 / 2 / Tandem

filed built-up 765matches to the sq ft1 + 1 bedrooms (marketing)1 bathroom (marketing)

The largest of the A family. One portal reports the project’s built-up range as “600 to 1,000 sq ft” and another gives “651 to 1,166” in its header against “650 to 1,138” in its own body — wrong at both ends in the first case and self-contradictory in the second. The filed range is 650 to 1,166 across ten types.

Type B — Jenis B

826 sq ft · 76.75 sqm · filed car park 1 / 2

filed built-up 826matches to the sq ft2 bedrooms (marketing)2 bathrooms (marketing)

The middle of the schedule. The B family runs 812, 826 and 858 sq ft on the filing and on the developer’s own page alike. Note that the filing orders the schedule by built-up, so Jenis B2 at 812 sq ft is printed BEFORE Jenis B at 826 — the type letters are not a size ranking.

Ask for this type’s filed schedule

No individually captioned plan for this type was published.

Type B1 — Jenis B1

858 sq ft · 79.70 sqm · filed car park 1 / 2

filed built-up 858matches to the sq ft2 bedrooms (marketing)2 bathrooms (marketing)

The largest two-bedroom type on the filed schedule. Still below the Federal Territory foreign-buyer floor at the statutory minimum of every tower, and the question of whether any individual unit of this type cleared RM1,000,000 cannot be answered from any filed document, because the statutory prices are filed by TOWER and not by type.

No individually captioned plan for this type was published.

Type B2 — Jenis B2

812 sq ft · 75.45 sqm · filed car park 1 / 2

filed built-up 812matches to the sq ft2 bedrooms (marketing)2 bathrooms (marketing)

The smallest two-bedroom type, and the fifth row of the filed schedule. One portal claims “seven layouts” for this project; the filing carries TEN, and the same record’s own type notes name four families, so it contradicts itself.

Type C — Jenis C

1,138 sq ft · 105.75 sqm · filed car park 2

filed built-up 1,138matches to the sq ft3 bedrooms (marketing)3 bathrooms (marketing)

One of the three types most likely, BY BUILT-UP, to have cleared the RM1,000,000 Federal Territory floor — along with Jenis Penjuru C at 1,025 sq ft and Jenis Penjuru D at 1,166. That is an ordering by SIZE and not a price finding, and this page labels it as such, because no per-type price is filed by anybody.

Ask for this type’s filed schedule

No individually captioned plan for this type was published.

Type Corner C — Jenis Penjuru C

1,025 sq ft · 95.20 sqm · filed car park 2

filed built-up 1,025matches to the sq ft3 bedrooms (marketing)3 bathrooms (marketing)

A three-bedroom corner at 1,025 sq ft — smaller than Jenis C at 1,138 despite the corner designation, which is why the schedule has to be read by built-up rather than by name. Two filed car-park bays, and that is the filed maximum for any type: no filed row offers three, against a portal’s “1 to 3 car park lots per unit”.

Type Corner D — Jenis Penjuru D

1,166 sq ft · 108.30 sqm · filed car park 2 · 2 bedrooms + 1 suite, 3 bathrooms (the developer’s own wording)

filed built-up 1,166matches to the sq ft2 bedrooms + 1 suite (developer)3 bathrooms (marketing)the fixture test cannot be run

The largest filed type, and the one the press describes differently from the developer. The developer’s own type page and e-brochure print “Type Corner D — 2 Bedrooms + 1 Suite — 3 Baths — 1,166 sq ft” and never use any other phrase; two press surfaces describe the type as a dual-key unit. What the room list supports is a separable suite with its own bathroom — and the developer’s own images of the Type Corner D suite are filed under their own separate names, which is its own evidence that the type HAS such a suite. What cannot be settled is whether that suite is a self-contained second dwelling, because the filed advertisement carries no fixture, electrical or sanitary schedule at all — so the kitchen-sink test that would answer it CANNOT BE RUN, and there is no second filed generation to compare. This page therefore neither asserts nor denies it, and asks for the fixture schedule in the sale and purchase agreement instead.

Ask for the Type Corner D plan and fixture schedule

What no source gives, per type: which tower each type sits in · a per-type or per-unit price · a per-type unit count · orientation · ceiling height · balcony area · accessory-parcel area · service-charge and sinking-fund rates · and any fixture, electrical or sanitary schedule. The filing prices by TOWER and the register prices by component row, which is the same thing — and that is precisely what makes the foreign-buyer count undeterminable. No service charge is published by anybody.

The developer’s own imagery — nineteen items, every one a launch-era render or a plan

EVERY IMAGE ON THIS PAGE IS A LAUNCH-ERA ARTIST’S IMPRESSION OR A PLAN, AND THAT IS ITSELF THE FINDING: this is a COMPLETED building whose only published imagery is launch-era renders. The developer’s microsite footer reads Copyright © 2019, the building was certified complete in March 2023, and no photograph of the finished towers is published on any surface this page could reach. No alt text was copied from the developer’s host, because there is none — every alt attribute on every content image there is empty, which at least means it cannot mislead. Nineteen items were published and sixty-two were not. Held back deliberately: the retail imagery and the two retail layout plans, because the retail component holds no registered scheme, no advertising permit, no filed building type and no stated status under the Act — keeping its imagery off a housing page is cleaner than captioning around it. Also refused: ten video posters running in two generations with numbering gaps, a pop-up served from the site root, the parent group’s own brand mark, an unused asset the pages reference nowhere, and the entire parent host’s library — which holds a file for a DIFFERENT KL Sentral development two items away from this one’s, with empty alt text on both and nothing but an abbreviated filename to tell them apart. And one item was held back for being merely inferred: a facilities file whose name describes nothing, whose subject rests on positional pairing alone, and which breaks its own folder’s numbering. Inferred is not a publication grade.

Brickfields, across Jalan Tun Sambanthan from the KL Sentral CBD

The honest geography, and the page is better for carrying it. The product is marketed as Sentral Suites @ KL Sentral — and MRCB’s own corporate page says the building is “located just 5 minutes away from KL Sentral”, MRCB’s own Annual Report 2011 calls it “a mixed development on government land next to KL Sentral”, and The Edge says it is “across the road from KL Sentral”. Three developer-side surfaces and a major publisher place this building NEXT TO rather than IN KL Sentral. That is not a contradiction to be resolved: the site is a Brickfields block on the Jalan Rozario / Jalan Chan Ah Tong side of Jalan Tun Sambanthan, opposite and adjacent to the CBD and sharing its 50470 postcode. And the rule that governs the rest of this section: ADJACENCY IS NOT A DISTANCE. Across the road, next to, walking distance and 5 minutes away are not figures, and none of them is converted into one here.

Registered scheme Suite Sentral — register code 14606-1, licensee COUNTRY ANNEXE SDN. BHD.

Read this row before any other number on the page. The scheme is registered under a name no developer surface, no portal and no press article uses, so the code and the licence number are the only strings a client can check with. Registers read 14 October 2026.

Sources, named: the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register record for 14606-1, read 14 October 2026; and the one filed statutory advertisement, HIMS file P45-20230109-00005755, IKLAN_BROSUR_01, lodged 9 January 2023, which has a text layer and carries a full BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN block and the approval statement IKLAN INI TELAH DILULUSKAN OLEH JABATAN PERUMAHAN NEGARA. The developer’s own retail e-brochure supplies the advertising permit number that the filed advertisement leaves blank, and is correct on every other cross-checkable field — which is credited below.

Every figure above is a filed or registered value, quoted and not computed. The statutory Unit Selling Price bands are published here because they are the filed SPA price ranges and they are public record. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, they are per TOWER and not per unit or per type, and on a building completed in March 2023 the live price is a subsale price that only the specific seller can state. The one price this agency gives is the sale and purchase agreement price (合同价), on request and in writing.

Foreign buyers — the Federal Territory floor is RM1,000,000, all three towers straddle it, and the count is UNDETERMINABLE

The threshold first, and the order in which it was settled matters. The filed plan reference is BP S1 OSC 2016 1002 and the filed approving authority is Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. DBKL’s planning jurisdiction is the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and nothing else, so the district was settled from the prefix FIRST and the floor was looked up SECOND. The Federal Territory floor is RM1,000,000, and it is the same figure for strata and for landed — two independent published sources give it, one of them this agency’s own guide, and one of them attributes it to the Ministry of Economy’s Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah effective 13 July 2022 and cites the National Land Code (Act 828) s.433B for state consent generally. NO SELANGOR ZONE FIGURE APPLIES TO THIS PAGE — Selangor’s main zones are RM2,000,000 and its third zone RM1,000,000, and this project is in neither state. Now the finding, which nobody has published. All three towers’ statutory bands STRADDLE the floor. On the register’s own component rows the minima sit at 69.2%, 80.9% and 72.6% of RM1,000,000 and the maxima at 1.40×, 1.57× and 1.37× of it; on the filed advertisement’s remaining-stock bands the minima sit at 72.9%, 84.2% and 80.5% and the maxima at 1.30×, 1.57× and 1.37×. So at the developer’s own statutory prices the cheapest units in every single tower fell SHORT of the floor, and the dearest units in every single tower cleared it — by between 1.30 and 1.57 times, which is far narrower headroom than this site has recorded elsewhere. HOW MANY OF THE 1,434 UNITS CLEAR RM1,000,000 IS UNDETERMINABLE, and it has to be said in those words, because NO per-unit and NO per-type price is filed by anybody — not by the brochure, not by the register’s component rows which price by tower, not by the developer and not by any portal. This page does not estimate it, does not derive it from a price per square foot and does not interpolate across a band. What can honestly be said is an ordering by SIZE and is labelled as one: the types most likely to have cleared the floor, by built-up, are Jenis C at 1,138 sq ft, Jenis Penjuru C at 1,025 and Jenis Penjuru D at 1,166. And the title restriction does not bar anyone here, which is itself a finding. Sekatan Kepentingan reads Tiada in the filed advertisement and Nil on the developer’s own panel — the FIRST Kuala Lumpur project on this site whose filing carries no Sekatan Kepentingan at all, which removes the strongest single foreign-buyer bar signal there is. It does NOT follow that a foreign buyer needs no consent: a foreign acquisition in a Federal Territory goes through the Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah route and s.433B regardless, and one of the two sources describes that consent as going through the Economic Planning Unit while elsewhere describing consent as a state-authority process. Name the conflict and confirm the authority with a Malaysian lawyer. On the only reachable source a commercial land category would NOT change the RM1,000,000 figure, because its Kuala Lumpur row says “same threshold for all property types” and does not name Kuala Lumpur among the places that treat commercial titles differently. And the context that makes all of this material rather than academic: this project was marketed to foreign buyers explicitly. A 2016 report names the target market as “investors aged 30 to 50, plus foreign buyers from China, Japan and Indonesia”. A building openly sold to buyers in China, Japan and Indonesia whose entire entry-level stock sat below the statutory floor — and no source anywhere says so. That is the finding, and it is the single most useful thing this page carries for a Chinese-speaking reader. Thresholds change; confirm the current figure and the consent route with a Malaysian lawyer before relying on anything here.

The two statutory price bands, and why they differ on six of twelve figures

Two surfaces publish a statutory band and they are not the same. The register’s three component rows read T1 RM692,360 – RM1,399,800, T2 RM809,210 – RM1,572,800 and T3 RM726,120 – RM1,367,800. The filed advertisement reads T1 RM728,800 – RM1,299,800, T2 RM841,800 – RM1,572,800 and T3 RM804,800 – RM1,367,800. Six of the twelve figures differ. AND THE EXPLANATION IS IN THE COLUMN HEADER: THE FILED PRICE TABLE’S QUANTITY COLUMN IS Baki Unit — REMAINING STOCK — AND NOT Jumlah Unit. Read that way, all six differences fall out in the right direction at once. The filing’s minima sit ABOVE the register’s on all three towers — by RM36,440, RM32,590 and RM78,680 — because the cheapest units had already sold by the January 2023 filing, when only 226 of 1,434 were left. The filing’s maximum on Tower 1 sits RM100,000 BELOW the register’s because the dearest Tower 1 unit had also sold. And the maxima on Tower 2 and Tower 3 are IDENTICAL TO THE RINGGIT, because the dearest units in those two towers were still unsold. This is NOT an orphan band, NOT a splice and NOT a price fall. It is a filed advertisement doing exactly what the law asks of it — advertising the stock actually on offer — and the comparison against the register only looks wrong if the column header is not read. This is the second worked instance of that rule on this site, the first on a high-rise, and the first time it resolves a twelve-figure discrepancy completely. Read the quantity column’s header before comparing a filed band to a register band. And the other half of the credit: there is no splice, no orphan figure and no stray fourth row — the two surfaces reconcile completely once the header is read, which is rarer here than a contradiction that does not resolve. THE DEVELOPER PUBLISHES NO PRICE AT ALL — not the residential e-brochure, not the retail e-brochure, not the microsite, not its own investment document. So the entire family of stale-developer-price-panel faults this site has caught elsewhere CANNOT OCCUR here, and that is credited too. Not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.

The GDV test PASSES, and the arithmetic is published for a pass exactly as it would be for a failure

Two announced figures exist for this project: RM1.5 billion (October 2016 and February 2017) and RM1.52 billion (May 2017). Run against the register’s own bands: the sum of the minima is 458 × 692,360 + 458 × 809,210 + 518 × 726,120 = RM1,063,849,220, and the sum of the maxima is 458 × 1,399,800 + 458 × 1,572,800 + 518 × 1,367,800 = RM2,069,971,200. RM1.52 billion sits 46% of the way between them — cleanly inside the band. NO STALE-GENERATION SIGNAL. THE TEST PASSES. This site has caught announced development values sitting BELOW the sum of the filed minima on three other projects, every one of them a stale-generation signal; here the announced value is consistent with the licensed stock at the filed prices, which is a point in the developer’s favour. A second, independent consistency check points the same way: a May 2017 report of RM500 million of signed sale and purchase agreements across “over 700 of the 976 phase-one units” implies an average of roughly RM714,000 a unit, which sits inside the Tower 1 and Tower 3 register bands and immediately below Tower 2’s floor — exactly where a Towers-1-and-3 phase-one average should sit. The press figures and the register corroborate each other. And one figure that must NOT be read as this project’s: a “potential RM1 billion” reported in July 2011 belongs to the PRIVATISATION PACKAGE — the street upgrade, the bazaar and the 212 government quarters — a different scope, five years earlier.

Build percentage, and the take-up line the filing carries by accident

peratus reads 100.00 on each of the three component rows, and the field is peratus rather than peratusSiap. It is quoted here and nothing is computed from it. status.keseluruhan reads Siap Dengan CCC with CCC 15 March 2023 and vacant possession 20 April 2023 on all three rows, and status.maklumatPembangunan reads Berfasa — phased — while the register files the scheme as three component rows with three different storey counts and three different bands. It says phased and it files it phased, which is the right way round and is credited. And the filed price table carries a take-up check almost by accident. Its quantity column is Baki Unit: 78 + 71 + 77 = 226 remaining of 1,434 as at the 9 January 2023 filing, i.e. 1,208 sold and 84.2% take-up. A third-party KPKT panel read today gives 221 remaining, i.e. 84.6%. Five units in nearly four years — which is the clearest available statement of where this building’s primary market stands: effectively closed, with about 15% of the original stock never sold by the developer, and the live market being subsale. That is also the single strongest reason this page is filed under Subsales and not New Launch. For completeness, a May 2017 report put “over 700 of the 976 phase-one units” booked, i.e. roughly 72% of Towers 1 and 3 four months after the first sale and purchase agreement.

The permit history, read BOTH ways — the narrowest credit margin recorded here, and two unpermitted intervals DURING selling

Six permits sit on this registration, all of them Tamat: 14606-1/01-2019/20(P) from 10 Jan 2017 to 9 Jan 2019 (24 months) · 14606-1/01-2020/01290(P) from 22 Jan 2019 to 21 Jan 2020 · 14606-1/01-2021/01424(P) from 22 Jan 2020 to 21 Jan 2021 · 14606-1/02-2022/01374(P) from 24 Feb 2021 to 23 Feb 2022 · 14606-1/02-2023/0159(R)-(S) from 24 Feb 2022 to 23 Feb 2023 · and 14606-1/02-2024/0248(R)-(S) from 24 Feb 2023 to 23 Feb 2024. THE CREDIT FIRST, AND IT IS THE NARROWEST MARGIN THIS SITE HAS RECORDED: permit 1 began on 10 January 2017 and the first sale and purchase agreement was signed on 13 January 2017, so selling began under a valid advertising and sales permit — BY THREE DAYS. For scale, the margins recorded elsewhere on this site run from 18 days to 409. Three days is the tightest, and it still counts as a credit, because it is the right way round — which is what the test asks. The margin is stated and not just the direction. NOW THE FAULTS, AND THE DISTINCTION MATTERS: BOTH GAPS FALL DURING THE SELLING PERIOD, NOT BEFORE THE FIRST SALE. Gap 1: 10 to 21 January 2019, TWELVE DAYS, two years after the first SPA with 226 or more units still unsold. Gap 2: 22 January to 23 February 2021, THIRTY-THREE DAYS. 45 days uncovered across two intervals, while permits 2→3, 4→5 and 5→6 are continuous to the day. An unpermitted interval BEFORE the first SPA would mean the developer began marketing before it was entitled to. An unpermitted interval DURING the selling period means that for twelve days in January 2019 and thirty-three days in February 2021 the development was being advertised and sold with no advertising permit in force. Those are different things, and this project has the second kind, twice. Then the lapse, and it is NOT a defect. The current permit lapsed on 23 February 2024, eleven months after the CCC. An advertising permit authorises the advertising and sale of UNSOLD stock, so a lapse eleven months after a building is certified complete is exactly what happens when a developer stops advertising. What it DOES mean is worth saying plainly: there is no current permit, so there is no current developer-side offer — the live market is subsale and the seller is an owner, not MRCB. One more reading, for anyone repeating this check: four consecutive permits from January 2017 to February 2022 are all (P) with no tail, which is the eighth confirmation on this site that (P) is not a pre-2017 form. Do not date-gate that check. And the free landed-versus-strata read off the permit tail was UNAVAILABLE here until the February 2022 renewal introduced -(S). A caution on the register’s own licence history: rekodLesenTerdahulu is EMPTY, and here that is NOT a positive finding. The current licence carries the (R) renewed suffix and two other surfaces print the superseded licence number, so the empty array means the register simply does not populate the field for this licensee, and it must be written as a register gap.

What is filed, what is blank, what is not filed at all — and the clean case, in those words

Kept strictly distinct, because they are four different things. ONE HIMS file exists: P45-20230109-00005755, IKLAN_BROSUR_01, lodged 9 January 2023, with a text layer and a full BUTIR-BUTIR IKLAN block. It carries the developer and both registration numbers, the licence and its validity, DBKL and the plan reference, Apartmen Servis, the 99-year lease to 25 September 2115, Sekatan Kepentingan: Tiada, Bebanan Tanah: Maybank Islamic Berhad, 458 + 458 + 518 = 1,434 units with Baki Unit 78 / 71 / 77, a ten-row built-up AND car-park schedule, Tarikh Dijangka Siap Jan 2024, the per-tower statutory bands, and a statutory ethnic-allocation field whose value this page withholds. NOT PRINTED, although the document exists and is fully readable: Nama Skim and Nama Projek — there is no project-name label and no heading at all; the first printed line is Pemaju: · Bilangan Tingkat · Keluasan Tanah · the project address · the developer’s address · the architect and every consultant · the website · bedrooms and bathrooms per type · the total car-park bay count · any facilities schedule · and any level assignment. FILED AS A BLANK FIELD — the label exists and the value does not: the No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan and its validity. And that blank did NOT prevent the lapse check: the permit number and both its dates were recovered from the register’s permitNo and permit history AND from the developer’s own retail panel, so the lapse IS fully assessable. “Cannot be read off the filing” is not the same as “unverifiable”. NOT FILED AT ALL — the document does not exist: the second brochure slot IKLAN_BROSUR_02 · IKLAN_AKHBAR_01, so there is no filed newspaper advertisement · and the entire older HIMS path form, so THERE IS NO GENERATION TO DIFF. The field-by-field comparison between two filed generations is this site’s single richest move and it is unavailable here — and the honest wording is no generation to diff, not the check was unavailable, and certainly not the filing is current: it is a January 2023 filing read in October 2026. CANNOT BE READ: NOTHING. This is the clean case, and it is said in those words, because three other sheets on this site had to write the opposite. Every field in the one filed document was legible and every one of them was read. NOT IN THE REGISTER: the licensee’s registration number · a website value · an e-mail value, which is a bare dash · a telephone value, which is null · a mukim · bedrooms and bathrooms, filed as 0 · a usable keluasan, which carries a corrupt character and is a BUILT-UP RANGE in square metres rather than a land area · and any rekodLesenTerdahulu entries. NOT OBTAINABLE FROM ANY SOURCE: the land’s lot or PT number, its area and its alienation date · the privatisation agreement’s consideration value · the main contractor and every consultant · the construction commencement date · the total car-park bays · the gross floor area · the mukim · DMIA Sdn Bhd’s registration number and whether the 70/30 shareholding still stands · the retail component’s lot-by-lot schedule and its status under the Act · and the statutory particulars of the retail lots, which do not exist, because there is no registration to carry them.

The developer’s own two statutory panels — one is simply CORRECT and one puts the permit number in the licence field

Unusually, this developer publishes TWO statutory panels, in two different PDFs, of two different generations — so the three-way comparison this site normally runs is a FOUR-way here, and that is what makes the error findable. PANEL 1, the residential e-brochure, page dated May 2022, has four faults in one block. It prints 14606-1/02-2022/01374(L) as the Developer’s License No. and 14606-1/02-2022/01374(P) as the Advertising & Sales Permit No. — the same number in both fields under two different suffixes. That number is the ADVERTISING PERMIT: the register’s own permit history carries 14606-1/02-2022/01374(P), 24 February 2021 to 23 February 2022, exactly. It cannot be a developer licence, because a developer licence number carries no -1 project index. Second, both validities had already expired when its own page was dated — they end 23 February 2022 and the page is dated May 2022. Third, the real licence for that window, 14606/02-2025/0206(R), is not printed at all. Fourth, the panel is now three permit generations and one licence generation stale. And the credit it is owed: the registration number on that panel, (439669-X), is the CORRECT one, and the KPKT filing’s is not. PANEL 2, the retail e-brochure, IS CORRECT ON EVERY CROSS-CHECKABLE FIELD. Its licence 14606/02-2025/0206(R), 24 February 2022 to 23 February 2025, is identical to the filing. Its permit 14606-1/02-2023/0159(R)-(S), 24 February 2022 to 23 February 2023, is identical to the register’s permit history to the day — and RICHER THAN THE FILING, because the filed advertisement leaves that field BLANK. Its authority, plan reference, tenure, lease expiry and restriction in interest all match the filing. Only one field contradicts: it says land encumbrances are Nil where the filing of the same licence generation names Maybank Islamic Berhad. State both; resolve neither. The charge may have been discharged between the panel’s drafting and the January 2023 filing, or the panel may simply be wrong — no document settles it, and on a scheme certified complete in March 2023 a buyer’s conveyancer settles it for any individual parcel with a title search. THE GENERAL RULE THIS PROJECT ESTABLISHES: “the developer’s statutory panel” is not one surface and has no single staleness. Fetch every PDF and every page separately, compare them, and name the stale surface PER DOCUMENT AND PER FIELD. And neither panel publishes a price, which is why the whole stale-price-panel family of faults cannot arise here.

NO RUMAWIP ROW — established four ways, and stated explicitly because three pages on this site differ on exactly this point

THERE IS NO RUMAWIP, Residensi Wilayah OR Harga Mampu Milik ALLOCATION ON THIS REGISTRATION. Four legs: (1) the words RUMAWIP, Residensi Wilayah and Harga Mampu Milik appear NOWHERE in the filed advertisement, read field by field twice; (2) the register carries three component rows and each carries ONE band — there is no second, state-controlled row sitting under a market row, no explicitly labelled affordable row, no -RMM / -AH type-code pair, and no built-up duplicated at two prices; (3) the lowest figure anywhere in the register is RM692,360 — 2.31× the RM300,000 RUMAWIP ceiling, and no row is at or below RM300,000; and (4) the Federal Territories’ own affordable-housing register carries no scheme at KL Sentral, Brickfields, Lembah Pantai or Jalan Tun Sambanthan in the portion read. The limitation on leg 4 is stated honestly: two of ten pages were read, so that leg alone is “no entry in the portion read”, and it is legs 1 to 3 that carry the finding. And a method warning for anyone repeating it: that register’s own search box is INERT — it carries a search term into its own pagination links and returns the identical default first page, while ?page=2 returns genuinely different content. Pagination works and the search does not, so never read a zero from that search box as a negative. The distinction this page draws: a Kuala Lumpur affordable allocation is RUMAWIP, and Rumah Selangorku has NO application here at all — it is a Selangor instrument and this is a Federal Territory project. What follows is the thing that matters to a buyer: there is NO state-controlled price on this registration, so the filed statutory minima ARE the open-market floors, and there is no second, state-set price to publish or to mistake for an entry price. Two affordable rows elsewhere are recorded as decoys and not as this project’s: one that matches on the word Sentral but sits in Putrajaya, and one in Seputeh that another page on this site already refused by name. Neither price may come near this page.

Green certification — a real PROVISIONAL row on the RESIDENTIAL tool, and the rating level is published NOWHERE

The project’s only GreenRE row, verbatim: Sentral Suites · Date of Certification 22 January 2019 · Type of Certification PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATION · Category RES v3.0 · Developer Country Annexe Sdn Bhd. The developer cell is an EXACT match to the licensee — not MRCB, not MRCB Land, not a brand — which makes GreenRE’s register one of only two public documents anywhere that bridge the marketing name “Sentral Suites” to the licensed company. The tool code is RES, the RESIDENTIAL tool, and that is the sixth independent leg that this project is a home and not a commercial-titled suite product: the non-residential tool codes are the fastest such filter there is, and a Suites project in central Kuala Lumpur elsewhere in the same register sits on the NON-residential tool with a FINAL Gold. Put the two side by side and the word “Suites” tells you nothing while the tool code tells you everything. IT IS PROVISIONAL, NOT FINAL. A provisional GreenRE certification is a design-stage assessment. Provisional is not “certified”, and this page does not write “certified”. AND THE RATING LEVEL IS NOT PUBLISHED ON ANY REACHABLE SURFACE. The row sits in the register’s unheaded, reverse-chronological certification-entry list, which carries no rating level by design, and the project appears in NONE of the four tier tables — Platinum (95 rows, a clean close), Gold (130, truncated), Silver (141, truncated) and Bronze (about 332, truncated). So the honest statement is the whole statement: GreenRE records a provisional residential certification dated 22 January 2019 to Country Annexe Sdn Bhd, and the rating level — Platinum, Gold, Silver or Bronze — is not published in any reachable part of the register. No level may be inferred from the tier page the list happened to be reached on: it is the same list on every tier page and its content depends on the byte offset, not on the rating. No FINAL certification entry appears — and that is NOT a clean negative: the visible portion of the list is 133 entries spanning eleven years, far too sparse to be a complete chronology. The wording is “no final certification is visible in the reachable portion of the register”, never “the provisional was never converted”. AND THE INVERSE OF THIS SITE’S USUAL FINDING, WHICH IS THE GOOD KIND: THE DEVELOPER ADVERTISES NOTHING GREEN AT ALL. There is no GreenRE logo, no rating claim, no “green building” line and no sustainability section on the microsite, in either e-brochure, in the investment document or on the parent’s project line. The certification is real and unadvertised. This site normally catches over-claiming; the opposite deserves to be credited when it happens. Four GreenRE rows are refused by name because they are one word away. The Ria @ KL Sentral / Riveria City Sdn Bhd / BRONZE provisional / 11 June 2025 / RES v3.3 is the most dangerous row in the set, in two directions at once: it matches on the exact locality string KL Sentral AND on Ria, and this site already publishes a different Ria page. It is a different licensee, a different parcel and a different development. Also refused: a Gold FINAL office tower whose name contains the one distinctive word in the licensee’s own name; a Penang Vivo scheme reached from the parent group’s own product catalogue; and a Platinum office tower at a township whose name sits inside a sibling licensee’s. NOT ONE ROW IN THE WHOLE SET IS ISSUED TO Country Annexe Sdn Bhd EXCEPT THE ONE ABOVE. THE LICENSEE IS THE DISCRIMINATOR AND THE TOOL CODE IS THE SECOND. On GBI: no claim exists and no check is available. The index is robots-disallowed from here, so the position is INCONCLUSIVE, never a negative — and no developer or press surface claims GBI for this project either, so nothing needs refuting; only the check’s unavailability needs stating.

Awards — one HIGHLY COMMENDED, beaten in its own category by a sibling, from a body that is the portal group

The one project-level citation, verbatim: “HIGHLY COMMENDED: Sentral Suites, KL Sentral by MRCB Land”, in the category Best High End Condo/Apartment Development (Klang Valley) at the 2019 awards, from the awarding body’s own gala release. THREE CAVEATS TRAVEL WITH IT AND ALL THREE ARE PRINTED. One: “HIGHLY COMMENDED” IS NOT “WINNER”. The WINNER of that very category was a sibling development in Seputeh under a DIFFERENT licensee. So this project was commended and then beaten, in its own category, by its own group — and a page that said “award-winning” would be wrong twice over. This page does not say it. Two: the awarding body is the portal group, the same house that publishes the three records on this building, one of which calls it commercial-titled and another of which gets its unit count wrong by a factor of three. The award, the portal record and any “independent” corroboration all come from one house, and that has to be said. Three: the recipient named is the BRAND — the citation says MRCB Land, and the licensee is Country Annexe Sdn Bhd. AND THE DECOY, REFUSED BY NAME, BECAUSE IT SITS ON THE DEVELOPER’S OWN HOST AND IS ONE WORD AWAY: the Best Luxury Lifestyle Development Award at the Property Insight Prestigious Developer Awards 2017 was awarded to THE SENTRAL RESIDENCES — a DIFFERENT MRCB development in the same CBD, whose name differs from this project’s by one word, and Sentral Suites is not mentioned in that release at all. A client reaches that decoy by searching the developer’s own name, which is exactly why it is named here and refused. From the same release, also refused: a Best Mixed Development award belonging to the Seputeh township, and a Top 10 Developers award which is CORPORATE and not a project award. And from the 2019 cycle: of seven entries connected to this group, six belong to the group itself or to other projects and exactly ONE names this building — as a highly commended. One further surface warning: a consultancy report the developer publishes on its own microsite contains a section reciting the GROUP’s recognition and achievements. Nothing in that section may be attributed to Sentral Suites. On QLASSIC: no score was found. The assessment register is not reachable from here and no developer or press surface publishes one. Recorded as “none found”, not as “none exists”.

Density — ≈292 to ≈302 units per acre, on a press acreage, with five denominators refused

There is no filed and no developer-stated parcel area. Keluasan Tanah is NOT PRINTED in the filed advertisement; the register’s keluasan field carries a corrupt character and is a BUILT-UP RANGE in square metres, not a land area — 77 m² is 829 sq ft, which sits inside the marketed 650 to 1,166 sq ft range, and this is the thirteenth record of that trap on this site and the first with a corrupt character in the value; and neither e-brochure, neither microsite page nor the investment document gives a site area. So every acreage in circulation is a PRESS figure and is labelled as one. Three exist: 4.75 acres from two independent publishers, 4.92 acres from two independent publishers, and 5 acres from one. The spread between the two best-supported figures is 3.6% and neither can be preferred — each has two independent publishers, and one publishing group prints both of them four years apart plus the outlier. So the range is carried rather than a figure picked. The arithmetic: 1,434 units over 4.75 acres is 301.9 per acre and over 4.92 acres is 291.5; including the 41 unregistered retail lots it would be 310.5 to 299.8. ≈292 to ≈302 units per acre is the highest density recorded on this site to date, against 228.8, 216.5, 140.8, 124.0, 11.92 and 9.41 on six other pages. It is stated plainly rather than dressed up: this is a transit-hub tower cluster on under five acres, and that is what such a building is. And nobody claims “low density” for this project, so there is nothing to refute — which is itself worth recording, because this site has caught the opposite printed inside a statutory advertisement elsewhere. FIVE DENOMINATORS ARE REFUSED, AND ONE OF THEM PROBABLY EXPLAINS THE “5 ACRES” OUTLIER. (1) The KL Sentral CBD’s own masterplan acreage — it carries offices, hotels, a mall, the station and multiple residential towers by multiple owners, no component parcel area is published for this plot, and dividing 1,434 by a CBD acreage would be plainly wrong. (2) The 5.085 acres of the government quarters complex at Jalan Ang Seng — a DIFFERENT SITE, the 212-unit block built under the same privatisation agreement, and almost certainly the source of one publisher’s “5 acres” for Sentral Suites. It is the cleanest worked example on this site of a sibling obligation’s acreage bleeding into a project’s own. (3) The developer’s own “about two acres of facilities and open spaces” — a facilities figure, not a land area; dividing by it would give a meaningless 717 per acre. (4) A 27.4-acre MRCB development named in the same article as this one. (5) The sibling licensee’s Seputeh township’s acreage, named on the parent’s own property page two lines from this project. And the plot-ratio cross-check is impossible, because NO gross floor area is published by anybody — no quantity surveyor, no contractor, no construction register, no annual-report figure. So the acreages stay unvalidated, and this page says so.

The 41 retail lots — the one part of this development that holds no registration at all

The marketing sells 1,434 serviced apartments PLUS 41 retail lots on the ground and first floors. The registration covers 1,434 and nothing else. 14606-2 is a CLIENT_ERROR and jumlahProjek is 1. The retail podium holds NO registered scheme, NO advertising and sales permit, NO filed building type and NO stated status under the Housing Development Act — not from the filing, not from the register, not from the developer and not from any portal. The plain-language consequence a buyer of a retail lot is entitled to: no Schedule G and no Schedule H, no statutory late-delivery formula, no section 7A housing development account so progress payments are not ring-fenced, no statutory defect liability period and no recourse to the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims — a dispute goes to court or arbitration, at commercial cost. The only figures anybody publishes for the podium are “41 retail lots” and unit sizes of 431 to 2,863 sq ft, from one portal and one publishing group, and they are unverifiable against any filing. The developer itself publishes no count and no area at all: its retail page says only that there are retail lots on the ground and first floors and that units are limited, and its retail e-brochure gives no lot count, no built-up and no separate particulars, and labels the product Serviced Apartments. So the developer publishes accurate statutory particulars FOR THE APARTMENTS inside a document about the SHOPS, and publishes no particulars at all for the shops. Two consequences for this page, both deliberate. One: the retail lots are not a product on this page — this is a housing page for a registered Schedule H scheme, and if a retail page is ever wanted it is its own post under a commercial category, with the plain statement of what is not registered beside it. Two: the retail imagery and the two retail layout plans were deliberately NOT published here, even though both layout plans carry printed captions and would have qualified on evidence. Keeping an unregistered component’s imagery off a housing page is cleaner than captioning around it.

The land, and why the title reads the way it does — a 2011 privatisation agreement, and a consideration in kind

A Privatisation Agreement was announced to Bursa Malaysia on 5 July 2011 between the Government of Malaysia, Syarikat Tanah dan Harta Sdn Bhd and Country Annexe Sdn Bhd. Under it the licensee undertook THREE projects in Brickfields, and NONE of them is Sentral Suites: (1) the Little India Project — the upgrading and beautification of Jalan Tun Sambanthan from the Jalan Travers intersection to the Brickfields police station entrance; (2) Pines Bazaar — a three-storey building with office space, 28 stall units and 140 car-park bays; and (3) 212 units of new government Class F quarters near Jalan Ang Seng, REPLACING the government quarters on JALAN ROZARIO. In consideration, the licensee received the land. The third undertaking was delivered: keys to 212 units housing 848 residents at the Kompleks Kediaman Kakitangan Awam, Brickfields, a 17-storey complex on a 5.085-acre compound with 343 parking bays, were handed over on 26 June 2014 by the Chief Secretary to the Government. SO SENTRAL SUITES SITS ON THE JALAN ROZARIO GOVERNMENT-QUARTERS SITE, AND THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE LAND WAS IN-KIND PUBLIC WORKS. That is what explains the 99-year lease expiring 25 September 2115 — a lease of that length implies alienation around September 2016, consistent with both the 2011 agreement and the DBKL approval of 26 October 2016 — why DBKL is the plan authority, and why, unusually for a government-land scheme, Sekatan Kepentingan reads Tiada. TWO THINGS THIS PAGE IS CAREFUL ABOUT. One: this is a developer-to-Government LAND CONSIDERATION, in kind. It is not a buyer inducement of any sort, and it carries no such reading at all: the consideration was a street upgrade, a bazaar and a replacement housing block. Two: those three works are PUBLIC WORKS, not products, and the quarters block is a DIFFERENT SITE — which is also where one of the refused density denominators comes from. Not obtainable: the agreement’s own consideration value, the land’s lot or PT number, its area and its alienation date. The Bursa page carries only a summary and its attachment is referenced and not served. And the corporate reading that follows: the licensee is the party to that agreement, the party on the licence, the party on the permit and the party on the filed advertisement — while every marketing surface, every portal and the award citation itself say “MRCB Land”. MRCB Land is the brand; Country Annexe Sdn Bhd is the licensee; and DMIA Sdn Bhd owns 30% of it and is named by exactly one document on earth.

What this page does not publish, and why

This page publishes the statutory Unit Selling Price bands, in both their filed and their registered versions, each labelled, and nothing else in the way of a figure. Four families of number exist on this project and all four are withheld in full. (i) The filed advertisement and the developer’s own retail panel both carry a Diskaun Bumiputera field — a statutory ethnic-allocation discount; the field’s existence is recorded on both surfaces and its value is withheld entirely. (ii) The developer’s own investment document on its microsite carries rental-yield and capital-appreciation claims, and its section headings name rental yields, a capital-value forecast, average rent growth and average price growth; the claims are recorded as existing and the surface is named, and every figure, rate, percentage and forecast value in it is withheld from this page, from its structured data and from every caption on it. (iii) One portal carries resale asking figures that sit below the register’s filed statutory minimum. They are withheld — and this page says which KIND of below-minimum figure it is withholding, because the kind is the whole point: these are SUBSALE ASKING PRICES on a building completed in 2023, which is entirely unremarkable, and not a developer “from” price sitting below a statutory floor, which would be a finding. (iv) A 2017-era portal “from” figure sits above the register’s statutory minimum but below the filed advertisement’s own remaining-stock minimum; it is withheld as a precaution, and the reason is ACCURACY rather than concealment — the two statutory surfaces have two different minima and no figure can be tied cleanly to either. AND THE CLEAN HALF, WHICH IS WORTH AS MUCH AND IS PUBLISHED HERE AS A CREDIT. Leaseback and guaranteed return are NOT offered on this project. The developer’s own investment document and the consultancy report it publishes beside it were both read specifically for them: no guaranteed rental return, no leaseback and no rental-assurance scheme appears on either. And there is no nett price, no rebate, no freebie, no incentive, no promotion and no commission figure anywhere on this project, on any of the eighteen surfaces read. A developer that ordered a named international consultancy’s study of its own location and still published no guaranteed return deserves that said. Finally, the standing rules this page follows on every project. The statutory bands above are public record and are the filed sale and purchase agreement price ranges; they are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer; they are per TOWER and not per unit; and on a building handed over in April 2023 the live price is a subsale price that only the specific seller can state. The one price this agency gives is the sale and purchase agreement price (合同价), on request and in writing.

Sentral Suites @ KL Sentral — the questions, answered from the filing and the register

Also worth seeing

Published 14 October 2026 · last verified 14 October 2026 against the KPKT TEDUH register record for 14606-1, the filed advertisement in HIMS file P45-20230109-00005755, GreenRE’s own register, and the developer’s own microsite and both e-brochures. Marketing information, not an offer.