SENTUL POINT SUITE APARTMENTS, Jalan Sentul Pasar, 51000 Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP KUALA LUMPUR — a COMPLETED Pangsapuri Suite under Jadual H: 2,352 units on TWO registrations, CCC 2 June 2020 and 17 February 2021 — and registered as Puncak Sentul, the marketing name rendered into Malay AND REVERSED, under register codes 14395-1 and 14395-2

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

Two PropertyGuru slugs on one record, two EdgeProp ids on one project, a Star-group feature, a new-launch directory, a construction register and a portal that leads with the registered name all exist for this development. Between them they disagree on the name, the unit count, the storey count, the bedroom count, the land area, the postcode, the completion year and the distance to KLCC. This page starts from the register, prints the register code beside every figure, shows both sides of each disagreement, and names every absence as an absence.

The twelve marketed types — and NOT ONE built-up on this project has ever been filed with KPKT

Read this before any square-foot figure below. This site’s standing rule is to take built-ups only from a filing’s statutory schedule, never from its narrative prose. That rule is moot here, because there is no filing of any kind: iklan: [] on both registrations. So every built-up, bedroom count and bathroom count on this page is a MARKETING figure, from a new-launch directory that is the only source in existence carrying a per-type table. One cross-check is available and it passes: the directory lists twelve type codes and a major portal independently says “12 layouts”. One contradiction is not resolvable and both sides are printed: the developer’s own home-page card advertises “721 sq ft · 1 bedroom”, while the only per-type table in existence gives the 721 sq ft type as a 2-bedroom; a second publisher also asserts a 1-bedroom product that the twelve-type table does not contain. Nothing filed can settle it. The register’s own bilik and tandas read 0 and 0 on both records — that asserts nothing and must not be read as “no bedrooms”. And no source anywhere assigns a type to a block, to a registration or to a floor band, so a buyer cannot be told which of the two price bands, which permit, which contractual date or which extension governs their own unit from a type code.

Every figure in this section is marketing, not filed, and the section says so on every line. What no source gives, per type: which block or registration a type sits in · the floor band for any type · the number of units of each type · the car-park allocation per type beyond one portal’s single sentence · any floor plan at all · the ceiling height, the orientation, the balcony size, the yard or the service area · any fixture schedule · and the split of the 1,400 and the 952 across the three blocks. The dual-key question does not arise: no source claims dual key on this project. But the test this site would normally run — reading the kitchen-sink line in a filed fixture schedule — is unavailable here, and the same absence disposes of several other checks.

Why there are no renders on this page

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

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

Jalan Sentul Pasar, Sentul — and the project IS in the place it is named after

This site has twice had to treat an “@ place” name as a question rather than a fact. Here the answer is straightforwardly yes. The register files both records’ daerah as Kuala Lumpur, one portal’s own district field reads Sentul, every address line in circulation reads Jalan Sentul Pasar, and the developer’s own audited annual report says the project “is located in Sentul” and “in the district of Sentul”. The best available address is Jalan Sentul Pasar, 51000 Kuala Lumpur, and that is the whole of it: no source prints a street number, a lot, a PT, a block address or a management-office address. And the rule that governs the rest of this section: ADJACENCY IS NOT A DISTANCE. Direct access, close to and within a short drive are relationships, not figures, and none of them is converted into one here. The developer publishes not one measured distance to anything — the sixth consecutive project by this group on which that is true — and the three publishers who do publish a distance to the city centre disagree by a factor of two.

Registered scheme Puncak Sentul — register codes 14395-1 and 14395-2, licensee INFINITE ACCOMPLISHMENT SDN. BHD.

Read this row before any other number on the page, and read the two codes as two records. Both registrations carry the IDENTICAL registered name, so a name search cannot separate them and the code is the only string that can. And there is no second statutory surface to compare this table against: iklan: [] and brochure: null on both records, both HIMS document path forms returning a 404 against a positive control that resolved in the same session, the P45 path form unconstructible, and no developer statutory panel in existence. So the three-way filing-vs-register-vs-developer comparison that carries most pages on this site CANNOT be attempted here at all, and this page says so rather than implying the check was run. Registers read 14 October 2026.

Sources, named: the KPKT KPKT TEDUH register project records for 14395-1 and 14395-2 — the first read twice, once for values and once for its exact field names — the full serial walk through 14395-3, and the licensee’s own developer record for code 14395, all read 14 October 2026; the HIMS document store in both path forms for both registrations plus two further document names, each returning a client error against a positive control that resolved in the same session; the Federal Territories’ own affordable-housing register, read end to end across all ten pages and 89 rows; the GreenRE certification register across all four tiers plus a certification-entry list read at two offsets; and two of the developer group’s own AUDITED annual reports, plus the named press, portal and construction-register records cited throughout. No register identifier, portal id or document path on this page was guessed.

Every figure above is a registered value, quoted and not computed. The public registry price bands are published here because they are public record, and they are labelled public registry bands rather than filed bands because no filed band exists. They are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, they are per REGISTRATION and not per unit or per type, and on a building CCC’d in 2020 and 2021 and marked sold out, 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, ZERO of 2,352 units ever cleared it, and the second half of the answer matters just as much

This is Kuala Lumpur, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, WP Kuala Lumpur, under Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. The Federal Territory foreign-buyer floor is RM1,000,000, strata and landed alike — Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah, effective 13 July 2022, with consent routed through the EPU. Selangor’s zone figures do not apply to this page and are not carried onto it. And here the arithmetic is unusually clean, and nobody anywhere publishes it. 14395-1’s registry band tops out at RM756,800, which is 75.68% of the floor. 14395-2’s tops out at RM817,800, which is 81.78%. So at the registered statutory prices ZERO of the 2,352 units in this development ever reached the threshold, and the dearest unit in the whole scheme missed it by RM182,200. No straddle, no undeterminable band, no per-tower split to compute — and not one of the twenty-two surfaces read mentions any of it. NOW THE SECOND HALF, WHICH THIS PAGE WILL NOT LEAVE OUT. On a completed building the threshold bites on the acquisition price of the transaction actually in front of the buyer, not on the developer’s original band. So the honest answer is in two parts: (i) at the registered statutory prices, nothing in this building was ever eligible; and (ii) whether any individual resale today reaches RM1,000,000 is NOT DETERMINABLE from any source read, and no source anywhere states the position. A page that printed only part (i) would mislead a foreign enquirer against their own interest; a page that printed only part (ii) would mislead them in the developer’s favour. Both are printed. And the title question is SEPARATE and cannot be answered at all: Sekatan Kepentingan is not obtainable — there is no filed advertisement to carry it and the register has no such field — so this site’s strongest single foreign-buyer bar signal is simply unavailable here. What IS known: the product is strata title (Pangsapuri Suite under Jadual H), and four marketing surfaces call it freehold while no statutory or audited document says anything. Say “the restriction in interest cannot be read”, never “there is no restriction”. A conveyancer’s title search is the only way to settle it, and a Malaysian lawyer should take you through the Federal Territory consent route.

The two public registry price bands — and the three tests this page would normally run on them, all unavailable, each named

The only publishable price family on this project is the TEDUH public registry band for each registration: 14395-1 RM466,800 – RM756,800 across 1,400 units and 14395-2 RM493,800 – RM817,800 across 952. They are PUBLIC REGISTRY figures and they are NOT a filed-advertisement band, because no filed advertisement has ever existed for either registration. That label is not pedantry. It costs this page three tests it normally runs, and each one is named rather than quietly skipped. (1) THE SPLICE TEST IS UNAVAILABLE. A register band can be a splice of two advertising-permit generations — this site has caught that four times. With no filed generation to compare against, this band can be neither confirmed nor refuted, so this page does NOT say the register matches the filing to the sen, and does not say it fails to. (2) THE REMAINING-STOCK TEST IS UNAVAILABLE. Two recent pages on this site turned entirely on reading the quantity-column header of a filed price table and finding it was Baki Unit, remaining stock. There is no filed table here, so the usual explanation for a filed minimum sitting above a register minimum has nothing to explain. (3) THE BELOW-MINIMUM TEST IS INAPPLICABLE IN ITS USUAL FORM. This site’s rule is never to report a discrepancy against a minimum that does not exist. The comparator here is the REGISTRY minimum, and the page says so explicitly wherever it compares anything to it. What the two bands DO reconcile with: 14395-2 is higher at both ends — +RM27,000 on the minimum and +RM61,000 on the maximum — which is consistent with a later phase on the same site and with the 952-unit record holding the larger stock of bigger types. No source confirms that reading, so it is recorded as consistent and NOT as proven. Not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer.

The GDV arithmetic — and the test cannot be run, because BOTH published figures belong to two projects at once

This site routinely tests a developer’s published gross development value against the sum of its own filed or registered price bands, because a stale GDV is a reliable marker of a stale data strip. Here the test is impossible, and the reason is worth printing. Only two GDV figures exist for this project and each covers TWO developments. One audited annual report says “the two projects have a combined GDV of RM3.00 billion”; the group’s listed parent says, of the SAME two projects, “combined gross development value of AUD $966.56 million”, with no exchange rate given in either report, so the two audited figures are not even reconcilable with each other. The other development in both sentences is a separate scheme with its own Atlas folder and its own register codes, and it is not on this page. For the record, the sums the test would have been run against: the sum of the registry minima is (1,400 × RM466,800) + (952 × RM493,800) = RM653,520,000 + RM470,097,600 = RM1,123,617,600, and the sum of the registry maxima is RM1,059,520,000 + RM778,545,600 = RM1,838,065,600. RM3.00 billion sits above the maxima sum — and since it covers two developments, that proves nothing about either. So: it is NOT apportioned, NOT attributed to this project, and NOT divided by 2,352. A gross development value published for two or more things cannot be split, and a third figure from 2014 that one news report implies for “Sentul Point (Phase 1)” probably belongs to a different building altogether.

The permit history, read for CREDITS as well as faults — and one record is the narrowest margin this site has ever recorded

There is no unpermitted interval of either kind on either registration — neither before the first sale and purchase agreement nor during the selling period. Four credits, each publishable, and they are printed because this site names faults readily and owes credits the same way. (1) CONTINUOUS PERMIT COVER ON BOTH RECORDS. 14395-1 runs 0455(P) 22 Jun 2016 – 21 Jun 2018 (24 bulan, Tamat), 01950(P) 22 Jun 2018 – 21 Jun 2019 (12 bulan, Tamat) and 02077(P) 22 Jun 2019 – 21 Jun 2020 — 48 months with no gap. 14395-2 runs 0455(P) 7 Jul 2017 – 6 Jul 2019, 02178(P) 7 Jul 2019 – 6 Jul 2020 and 02515(P) 7 Jul 2020 – 6 Jul 2021 — 48 months with no gap. That is the exact inverse of the thirteen-and-a-half-month gap and the two during-selling intervals this site has had to report on other projects. (2) PERMIT 1 PRE-DATES SPA 1 ON BOTH — by 20 days on 14395-1 (22 Jun 2016 against 12 Jul 2016) and by ONE DAY on 14395-2 (7 Jul 2017 against 8 Jul 2017). One day is the narrowest credit margin this site has ever recorded, beating a three-day margin set a day earlier — and it is still on the right side. Selling began under a valid permit on both phases. The margin is published, not just the direction. (3) EACH PERMIT WAS RENEWED THE DAY THE PREVIOUS ONE EXPIRED — three generations and two seamless renewals on each record. (4) BOTH PERMITS LAPSED AFTER THE CCC, NOT BEFORE IT — 14395-1’s ran 19 days past its own CCC and 14395-2’s ran 139 days past. An advertising permit is a permit to advertise and sell a housing development; on a building CCC’d in 2020 and 2021 and marked sold out, its lapse is expected and carries NO adverse inference. This page says that in those words, because a reader checking the register will otherwise read a lapse as a default. Both permit numbers reconstruct correctly from their own /MM-YYYY/ segments — /06-2020/ ends 21 Jun 2020 and /07-2021/ ends 6 Jul 2021. No spliced serial, no transplanted number, no fabricated validity, no placeholder. After four separate traps of exactly those kinds on other projects, a permit field that is simply correct deserves the mention. One oddity, recorded without inference: the first permit on each record carries the same running number, 0455, in different years. It is probably a serial coincidence and it is not a corruption, because both numbers reconstruct from their own date segments. Noted, and nothing is built on it. And the consequence that costs this page a check: all six permits are (P), so there is no -(L) or -(S) tail to read and the free landed-versus-strata determination is unavailable on this project. That is also the ninth confirmation on this site that (P) is not a pre-2017 marker — here it runs from 22 June 2016 to 6 July 2021. A corollary that is a credit: with every permit (P) and no developer panel in existence, the suffix-mismatch trap that has recurred on nine projects here CANNOT ARISE on this one at all.

What is NOT FILED, what is ABSENT FROM THE REGISTER, what CANNOT BE READ, and what was READABLE AND CHECKED — four different things, kept apart

These are four distinct states and this page refuses to blur them, because a reader cannot judge a gap without knowing which kind it is. A. NOT FILED — iklan: [] on both records, the weakest of the three filing states and the reason for most of what follows. There is no filed building type; no statutory Unit Selling Price minimum or maximum; no filed built-up schedule; no filed car-park allocation; no Pegangan Tanah and no lease expiry; no Sekatan Kepentingan; no Bebanan Tanah or chargee; no Pihak Berkuasa Yang Meluluskan and no No. Kelulusan Pelan; no Keluasan Tanah; no lot or PT number; no fixture schedule and no kitchen-sink line; no Baki Unit; no consultants; no facilities schedule; no filed project address; and no filed completion date. And no second generation to diff against, in either path form, on either record. B. ABSENT FROM THE REGISTER RECORD — which is a different thing: the field does not exist in the data structure at all. mukim · poskod · bandar · lot · pegangan · pbt · any plan reference · and any Lewat or Lancar field — the overall value is carried by status.keseluruhan instead. Bedroom and bathroom counts are present as 0 and 0, which asserts nothing. C. CANNOT BE READ — present but unreadable, and exactly ONE thing on this project earns that label. A brochure PDF on the group’s corporate host is image-only with no machine-readable text layer — and it belongs to a DIFFERENT development on the same street, so even if it could be read it would not be about this building. Nothing else here is dressed up as “cannot be read” when the truth is “was never filed”. D. READABLE AND CHECKED — printed so that none of the above reads as a dodge. status.keseluruhan (Siap Dengan CCC, both) — which is why the Lewat late flag reads NOT FLAGGED rather than “cannot be checked” · peratus (100.00, both) · pindaanTempohSerahKosong (Ya, both, with both extension figures) · mempunyaiKesalahan (null) · statusPemaju (Aktif) · the full permit history on both records · and the public registry price bands. E. NOT PUBLISHED BY ANYBODY — neither a register gap nor a filing gap: nobody anywhere has it. The licensee’s registration number · the land area, beyond one figure whose own label is disputed · the gross development value for this project alone · the tenure as anything but a marketing claim · which registration contains which block · the contractor and all four consultants · the 142 retail lots’ title category and housing-law status · the 300 affordable units’ registration, price and date · and any measured distance from the developer.

The developer publishes no statutory panel at all — and that is a CREDIT, not only an absence

This site has spent weeks catching developer data strips out: a stale advertising-permit generation; a permit number printed in the licence field; a validity period that does not reconstruct; a price panel whose “from” figure sits below the filed statutory minimum. None of that can happen here, and the reason deserves saying plainly. The developer publishes NO statutory panel for this project. Its marketing host has no APDL page at all — the page list on that host resolves to four pages and none of them is a statutory block — and the project’s own record on that host has an EMPTY body and an EMPTY field set: the entire public-facing marketing copy for this development is a home-page card reading the project name, the word Sentul, the word Completed, the words Sold Out, a square-foot figure and a bedroom count. There is no brochure for this project on any reachable host. So the whole family of developer-panel findings cannot occur on this project. That is a clean outcome, and this page credits it in the same breath as it criticises the absence of a filing — because they are two different things. The honest cost is still stated: with no panel and no filing, the register is the only statutory surface, and a single surface cannot be cross-checked against itself.

RUMAWIP — NO row on either registration, established four ways; and yet a 300-unit affordable block at this development appears in NO register of any kind. This is the biggest finding on the project.

The answer here is not a flat no, and both halves must be published. HALF ONE: NEITHER REGISTRATION CARRIES A RUMAWIP ROW. Four legs, three of them available. Leg 1 is UNAVAILABLE — the words RUMAWIP, Residensi Wilayah or Harga Mampu Milik would be read inside a filed advertisement, and there is none. Leg 2 PASSES: each record has ONE component row with ONE price band — no second, controlled-price row on either. Leg 3 PASSES: there is no -RMM, -AH, -NPT or -OMU type-code pair, and although the twelve marketed codes show three duplicated built-ups, all are at the same marketed size with no second price attached — the ordinary suffix-variant pattern, not an affordable-pair signature. Leg 4 PASSES: the lowest register figures, RM466,800 and RM493,800, are 1.556× and 1.646× the RM300,000 RUMAWIP ceiling — well clear, so neither row can be a controlled price. And the corroboration is unusually strong: the Federal Territories’ own affordable-housing register was read end to end, all ten pages and 89 rows, and there is no Sentul Point, no Puncak Sentul, no Infinite Accomplishment and no Jalan Sentul Pasar row anywhere in it. A note for anyone repeating the check: that register’s search box is INERT — it carries the search term into its own pagination links and returns the identical default first page — so a zero from it proves nothing. The paginated listing is what was read. HALF TWO, AND IT IS THE HEADLINE: A 300-UNIT RUMAWIP BLOCK AT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NAMED BY TWO INDEPENDENT SOURCES AND APPEARS IN NO REGISTER OF ANY KIND. A major news group reported on 17 March 2018 that “300 condominium units in the pipeline will come from RUMAWIP … at Sentul Point”. A construction register carries a record titled for this project and this street as Affordable Housing: 29 storeys, 300 units, private, new construction, main contractor awarded, value banded with the exact figure blank, target completion October 2026 — and its last verified field reads 25 July 2024. The 300 matches across two publishers who share no house. And: it is NOT part of the licensed 2,352, because the serial walk ends at 14395-2 and bilanganProjek agrees, so there is no third registration to hold it; it is NOT in the Federal Territories’ register, across 89 rows; it is NOT in either audited annual report, neither of which mentions an affordable or RUMAWIP block at Sentul; and its 29 storeys and 300 units match NEITHER this project (46 storeys, 1,400 + 952) NOR the other development on this street (26 storeys plus a 3-storey podium, 462 units), so it is a FOURTH building on or beside this site. Its own record also contradicts itself three ways — status Completed, target October 2026, last verified July 2024 — so no date from it can be relied on. THE HONEST STATEMENT, AND IT MAKES NO ALLEGATION ABOUT ANYONE’S CONDUCT. The requirement: a housing development must be registered under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, must hold a developer licence and an advertising and sales permit, and must be sold on a prescribed contract. What the registers contain: two registrations totalling 2,352 units, and nothing else on this licence. What follows for a buyer, stated plainly: an unregistered block carries no Schedule H, no filed delivery date and no advertising permit — which is exactly why the 2,352 units that ARE registered are worth distinguishing from it. Nothing about that block’s housing-law position, its schedule, its price or its delivery can be established at all. And it is a material disclosure for anyone buying a completed unit here: construction beside a delivered building, years after vacant possession, is a position this site has had to report before — and no consumer source makes this one. ONE LAST THING, BECAUSE IT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE LOOKED LIKE A MATCH. The Federal Territories’ register does contain a 300-unit affordable scheme in the same parliamentary locality and in the same probable mukim — Laman Seri Harmoni (LSH33), developer BESTEEL ENGTECH SDN. BHD., Mukim Batu, Lot PT 50105, at Jalan Batu Muda Tambahan 3, RM300,000, 36 storeys over an 8-storey car-park podium, applications closed. It matches on the unit count AND on the mukim AND on the constituency — three independent routes to one wrong answer. It is a DIFFERENT developer on a DIFFERENT street and it is NOT this project’s allocation. REFUSED by name. Fourteen further rows in the same localities were refused on locality alone. And the distinction this site insists on: this is RUMAWIP, a Federal Territories scheme. A Selangor controlled-price list has no jurisdiction here and is not cited.

The 142 retail lots — named in two audited annual reports, holding no registration, and nothing about them is published as if it were on offer

Both of the group’s audited AR2020s name “142 units of retail shops” at this development, alongside the 2,352 serviced apartments and across three blocks. Those 142 lots hold NO registration of any kind: the serial walk ends at 14395-2 and bilanganProjek reads 2, so there is no record to hold them. And NO document anywhere states their title category, their status under the Housing Development Act, their contract schedule, their delivery date, their price, their size or their current ownership. One portal frames the development as “a mixed-use commercial and residential hub” and gives a retail feature list — a bank branch, convenience stores, pharmacies, clinics, dining. That is a PORTAL’S framing of 142 unregistered lots, not the developer’s, and it is attributed as such. This is why this page is NOT tagged Commercial. The retail component is real and is named in two audited reports — but tagging the page Commercial would assert a marketed commercial component that no filing supports, and this site has declined that tag twice before on exactly this reasoning. The component exists, it is unregistered, and nothing about it is published here as if it were on offer. If you are looking at a shop lot rather than an apartment, the agreement you would sign and the protections that apply are a question for a conveyancer, and this page will not guess the answer.

Green certification — NONE, graded four ways, with the developer claiming none; and the three most dangerous borrows named and refused

There is no GreenRE row for this project, for its registered name, for its marketed name or for its licensee in any reachable part of the GreenRE register, read 14 October 2026. The negative is graded, because a negative is only as good as the read behind it. Platinum: a CLEAN NEGATIVE — 95 rows with a clean close on the final row, the twenty-third consecutive consistent run of that read on this site. Gold (130 rows), Silver (141) and Bronze (332): TRUNCATED, so the only honest statement is “no entry in the reachable portion”. The certification-entry list was read at TWO offsets, as the method now requires: the Silver list returned 133 entries spanning 10 October 2014 to 1 July 2025 — exactly the right window for a 2016–2021 scheme — and contains no Infinite Accomplishment, no UOA, no Sentul and no Puncak developer cell; the Bronze list’s window was the wrong one and is recorded with that limitation. And the strongest leg is the developer’s own audited report: Annual Report 2025, Table 12, page 27, enumerates the group’s green-certified buildings — one residential Bronze marked FINAL, two design-stage Gold certifications marked PROVISIONAL and split by floor band on an office tower, and one LEED Gold operating certification on an existing business park. SENTUL POINT IS NOT AMONG THEM. The developer’s own audited report lists four certifications across its whole portfolio and this project holds none of them. That is four legs, which is as strong as a green negative gets here. GBI: the certified-buildings register returned a client error again, so GBI is INCONCLUSIVE and never a negative. And the clean half: the developer makes NO green claim for this project anywhere — not on its marketing host, not in AR2020, not in AR2025. So there is no over-claim to catch and nothing to grade down. It claims nothing and it holds nothing, and the consistency is credited. NOW THE REFUSALS, AND THE FIRST THREE ARE THE MOST DANGEROUS SHAPES THIS SITE KNOWS. (1) A GreenRE GOLD, ACTIVE, 2 March 2026, residential tool RES v3.3 certification is held by a different licensee entirely, on a project in this same locality that already has its own page on this site. That is the same locality string, the residential tool, and a live page — which is exactly how such a borrow goes unnoticed. REFUSED, and nothing from that page crosses to this one. (2) A GreenRE SILVER, 15 August 2024, RES v3.2 is held by a third licensee under a near-identical name to the first. Two almost identical names, two different companies, two different tiers, one locality. All three are kept apart. REFUSED. (3) A GreenRE BRONZE, PROVISIONAL, 20 September 2024, RES v3.3 is held by another company in THIS SAME GROUP, on a residential project about 3 km away that also already has its own page here. Same group, same city, residential tool, built page. REFUSED. (4) The group’s own Bronze FINAL residential certification, its two provisional design-stage Gold office entries and its LEED Gold business-park entry are all group assets and not this project’s. A FINAL certification must never migrate onto a project with none. REFUSED. (5) TWO NEW DECOY AXES, worth recording because they will recur. The generic half of a marketing name: three certifications were returned on the word Point — a Platinum residential scheme, an interiors-tool Bronze at a bank branch and an industrial-tool Silver inside a warehouse name. REFUSED: Point is half this project’s marketing name and it is generic. And a milestone street name that carries this project’s probable MUKIM: two certifications were returned on the word Batu, one a Platinum at a milestone address on a different road and one a non-residential Bronze in another state. REFUSED. (6) Twelve further certifications across twelve different licensees were refused on the word Suite alone, which sits in this project’s own marketing name. The illustration worth keeping: one central-KL “Suites” project sits on the NON-RESIDENTIAL tool while another “Suite” project sits on the residential one. The word tells you nothing; the tool code tells you everything. And HERE THERE IS NO TOOL CODE AT ALL, which is precisely why the Jadual H register entry has to carry the title question instead. Twenty-four rows refused in total, every one a different licensee.

Awards and QLASSIC — none at project level, the group’s are corporate, and the one project-level distinction is a PROCESS and not a certification

THE PROJECT HOLDS NO AWARD. No property, design, sustainability or workmanship award is claimed for this development by the developer, by either audited annual report, by any portal or by any newspaper. QLASSIC: NONE. The word QLASSIC does not appear in the developer’s AR2020 at all, and no source mentions a score for this project. That is worth stating explicitly, because QLASSIC is the one award a recently completed scheme may genuinely hold, and this one does not. THE GROUP’S AWARDS, AND WHY NONE OF THEM MAY BE BORROWED. The group’s own awards page was unreachable in this session — its front-end pages returned server errors while its data interface served normally, and the awards page itself resolves with an empty body — so the verified record is carried from a sibling sheet and is cited as such: SIX entries, EVERY ONE CORPORATE — a top-ten developer award to the listed parent in three consecutive years, and a corporate award to the group’s trust in two. Not one is at project level, and the AR2025 independently repeats the developer award as a GROUP award, “Twelfth (12th) Times”. AND THE BORROW TO REFUSE BY NAME: the AR2020 describes the group’s Bangsar South estate as its “award winning integrated development” without naming the award or its issuer. That is a township award, in a different township, with no award name. It does not appear on this page in any form. THE ONE PROJECT-LEVEL DISTINCTION, AND IT IS A PROCESS. AR2020, page 12, carries a heading reading “Project Quality Management System (Sentul Point)” and describes “an integrated platform that enables the synchronisation of work processes” which are “digitised and automated using web and mobile devices”, running “from early stages of the construction process until completion and final handover” to support “real-time collaboration and communication between all stakeholders” and “improved speed and efficiency in construction and defect management”. This is the ONLY place in any audited document where this project is singled out for anything, and it is an internal digital construction-and-defect-management platform: NOT a certification, NOT an award and NOT third-party assessed. It is published here attributed and as exactly what it is: the developer says it ran this project on its own digital quality-management platform through to handover and defect management. It is not dressed up as a quality certification, and the group’s ISO 9001:2015 and OHSAS 18001 references in the same report are group-level and are not attached to this project either.

Density — ≈538 units per acre, DERIVED, and the denominator is one number published under two incompatible labels

There is no filed, registered or audited land area for this project. Keluasan Tanah exists only inside a filed advertisement and none exists; the register has no land-area field, and its keluasan: 107 is not one; and the audited reports’ list of material properties — the table that would carry tenure, land area and net book value — sits beyond the reachable text layer on every annual report tried. THE ONLY FIGURE IN EXISTENCE IS 4.37 ACRES, AND ITS TWO PUBLISHERS LABEL IT DIFFERENTLY. One Star-group surface gives it as “Land area: 4.37 acres”. A new-launch directory gives the same number as “4.37 acres OF FACILITIES”. One number, two incompatible labels — and a figure with two labels cannot carry a density. Both surfaces almost certainly descend from one developer fact sheet, so this is ONE figure with a corrupted label, not two findings, and this page does not adjudicate it. So the division is printed once, labelled DERIVED, with both labels and both sources attached: 2,352 residential units ÷ 4.37 acres ≈ 538.2 units per acre, or ≈570.7 if the 142 retail lots are added. A third computation — adding the 300 unregistered affordable units — is NOT published, because nothing establishes that that block sits on the same parcel. At ≈538 per acre this would be the second-densest project on this site, which is precisely why the denominator’s disputed label has to be printed beside it or not printed at all. Every cross-check is impossible: no plot ratio, because nobody publishes a gross floor area; no net-to-gross check, because there is no lot area, no footprint and no filed built-up total; no land-transaction check, because no land announcement for this site was found. SIX DENOMINATORS REFUSED. (1) A different developer’s 117-hectare railway-land master development in this same locality — dividing by it would understate this project’s density about sixtyfold, and the article’s own two component figures do not even add up to its stated total, so neither is safe for anything. (2) The group’s 1,240-acre undeveloped landbank across Greater Kuala Lumpur — a GROUP LANDBANK. (3) A 26-acre and a 16-acre figure belonging to a sibling development by the same group about 3 km away. (4) That same sibling’s own corroborated 11 acres — same group, different site. Refused. (5) keluasan: 107, which is not a land area at all: read as one it would put 2,352 units on 107 square metres. (6) 4.37 acres read as the land area WITHOUT its disputed label — refused in that form, and usable only with both labels attached. Nobody claims this project is low density, and at a derived ≈538 per acre nobody could.

Imagery — there is none on this page, and that is a finding with a named cause

NO PUBLISHABLE IMAGE OF THIS BUILDING EXISTS ON ANY SURFACE READ, so this page carries none and says why rather than filling the space. The developer’s own project record is content-free — an empty body, an empty field set and a single attachment — and its rendered page carries navigation, a logo, a subscribe form and a footer and no project image, no floor plan, no site plan, no caption and no figure. There is no dedicated microsite for this project. A construction register holds no images and locks every specification. Portal photographs are third-party agent uploads with no established subject and no licence to reuse, and are refused. AND THE SPECIFIC TRAP, NAMED BECAUSE IT IS THE REASON THIS PAGE HAS NO GALLERY. The group’s corporate host holds exactly three assets under a Sentul name — a thumbnail, a location graphic and a brochure PDF — and ALL THREE are titled for a DIFFERENT UOA development on the SAME STREET — a village-named scheme of 462 units in one 26-storey block over a 3-storey retail podium, completed around 2017. Same group, same road, same word: they are the single most likely wrong pick on this project, and all three are REFUSED for exactly that reason. The brochure among them is also image-only with no machine-readable text layer, which is why it is the one item on this project that earns the label “cannot be read” — and it would not have been about this building even if it could be read. A same-endpoint control settles that this is a real negative and not an empty response: the same query form returned twenty assets for a sibling development and exactly one for this one, and a Point query on the corporate host returned nothing at all. That single asset is 450 × 301 pixels with an empty alt text and no caption anywhere on its host: project-confirmed by its own title and record placement, but with its SUBJECT UNESTABLISHED — so it could never honestly be called a view of a particular tower, a facility, a pool, a lobby, an interior or a view, and at that size it is below this site’s usable threshold in any case. It was not uploaded. Nothing is substituted: no photograph of Sentul, no station, no park belonging to another developer’s master development, and no asset from any of the fourteen other developments sharing that library — four of which already have their own pages on this site. If artist impressions, floor plans or a site plan for this project exist anywhere, the agency’s own project folder is the only route to them — and it is also the only plausible route to the tenure, the lot number and the car-park allocation.

The names in circulation — six forms, and the registered one is a Malay rendering with the words reversed

Six name forms are in circulation for this development and the registered one is used by almost nobody. Puncak Sentul is the registered scheme name on BOTH records, printed twice in the licensee’s own project list — and it appears on ZERO developer surfaces and on exactly ONE portal, which leads with it. Sentul Point is the agency folder name and the form used by two portals and two newspapers. Sentul Point Suite Apartments is the developer’s own name for it — its record slug on its own marketing host, its home-page card, both audited annual reports, a Star-group feature and a new-launch directory — and it is the form this page’s address uses, for that reason. Sentul Point Residence (Residensi Puncak Sentul) is one portal’s form, and the register-style half of it matches NO register field: the register has no Residensi prefix anywhere. A sixth form pairs the project name with an Affordable Apartments suffix on a construction register, and what that record describes is in no register at all. THE SHAPE, AND IT IS NEW HERE: THE MARKETING NAME RENDERED INTO MALAY *AND* REVERSED. Puncak is not a dictionary equivalent of Point — it means peak, summit or apex — so this is a loose Malay rendering with the word order inverted, which makes it harder for a client to guess than a straight translation would be. Both halves of the marketing name survive in the register, but neither in the right language nor the right order, so a register search on Sentul returns this scheme alongside three other licensees’ and a search on Sentul Point returns nothing. This is the fourteenth distinct registered-name shape this site has catalogued, after the project name itself, a generic descriptor, a township, the developer’s own company name, a landowner’s phasing, the name in the developer-name field, a tenure label, a product category, a descriptor plus a brand, an empty field, a sibling brand plus a numeral, a sub-phase index, and word order simply inverted. And a second identity shape, here again: TWO REGISTRATIONS SHARING ONE IDENTICAL REGISTERED NAME — the first Kuala Lumpur instance on this site, and the two records differ in size, price band, permit, SPA date, extension and CCC. Everything except the name.

Tenure, title and the five closed routes to a lot number — what to ask a conveyancer for

Four marketing surfaces call this freehold. No statutory or audited document says anything at all. There is no filed advertisement to carry Pegangan Tanah; the register has no pegangan field on either record; and the audited reports’ list of material properties, which would carry tenure, land area and net book value, is beyond the reachable text layer on every report tried. So the honest line is this: every consumer source says freehold, no filed or audited document states the tenure, and there is NO lease expiry on the public record to give you. This page does NOT state freehold as a filed fact and does NOT print an expiry, because there is none to print. And the absence cannot be filled by analogy: two other projects within a couple of kilometres of DBKL territory have 99-year leases filed to 2123 and to 2115 respectively, so in this corner of Kuala Lumpur the tenure genuinely varies and a neighbour’s title tells you nothing about this one. FIVE ROUTES TO A LOT OR PT NUMBER, ALL CLOSED: no filing · no register field · no land announcement to the stock exchange for this site · the construction register’s address is subscriber-locked · and no annual-report properties table within reach. The mukim is equally unestablished, and this page prints “ask for a title search” rather than a mukim name. What to ask a conveyancer for, in writing, before you sign: the tenure and any lease expiry · the category of land use and the express conditions · the restriction in interest · whether the individual strata title has issued and the share units attaching to the parcel · any charge still registered against it · the mukim, the lot or PT number and the parcel area · and which of the two registrations, 14395-1 or 14395-2, the block actually sits in — because that determines which price band, which permit, which contractual date and which approved extension governed the unit, and NO document anywhere maps it.

The contractor, the consultants, and an eighth kind of closed door

The contractor and all four consultants are UNKNOWN, and the usual tests cannot be run in either direction. A construction register identifies five companies across five roles — one developer, one civil and structural engineer, one mechanical and electrical engineer, one architect and planner, and one contractor — and NAMES NONE OF THEM. The exact project value, the full address and every specification are subscriber-locked, and its construction-start field is a bare dash, so there is no commencement date to measure anything against. No stock-exchange contract announcement for either phase was found; neither audited annual report names a contractor; and the group describes a project quality-management platform that it operated ITSELF. So this is a paywalled closed door compounded by a missing commencement date, and possibly also by in-house delivery — three closures at once, and the honest statement is that the contractor and all four consultants are simply unknown. The substitute test this site would otherwise run — elapsed programme against percentage built — is both unavailable and unnecessary: both registrations read peratus 100.00 and both carry a CCC. And the joint-venture question is answered NEGATIVELY with positive evidence: the licensee is 100% UOA Group in the corporate-structure charts of two audited AR2020s, no partner, landowner or co-developer is named by any source, and no landowner is named anywhere at all — so the landowner-holds-no-licence test this site runs elsewhere cannot be run here, because there is no second party to test. That is stated rather than left silent. The chain, for the record: the ASX- and SGX-listed parent → the Bursa-listed developer (200401015520 / 654023-V) → INFINITE ACCOMPLISHMENT SDN. BHD. at 100%.

Every completion date in circulation — fourteen readings across ten surfaces, two of them for a different building

The governing contractual dates are 12 July 2020 and 8 January 2022. The delivered dates are the CCCs of 2 June 2020 and 17 February 2021. NOT ONE consumer source prints any of the four. Here is everything that circulates, with what each one actually is. Register-only, published by nobody else: 12 Jul 2019 and 8 Jul 2020, the ORIGINAL contractual vacant-possession dates; 12 Jul 2020 and 8 Jan 2022, the GOVERNING dates after the approved extensions; 2 Jun 2020 and 17 Feb 2021, the CCCs. From the press and the portals: “by 2017”, a 2014 projection that probably belongs to the 462-unit building on this street that is a different development; “roughly three to four years from end-2017”, a market-supply estimate for four projects in this area and not a project statement; “under construction” in 2018, a status and not a date; “June 2020” from two surfaces, which matches Phase 1’s CCC to the month and is the only consumer figure on this project that is right; “2020” from one portal in both its data table and its prose, right for 1,400 units and wrong for the other 952; “N/A” from a second portal, which carries no date at all; and a target completion of October 2026 from a construction register — which is NOT this building: it is the 300-unit affordable block, in a record that simultaneously marks the project “Completed” and was last verified in July 2024. From the audited reports: Phase 1 “completed in the second half of 2020”, which sits AFTER the 2 June 2020 CCC and is therefore almost certainly describing vacant-possession DELIVERY rather than the certificate — the other AR2020 saying Phase 1 “commenced delivery of vacant possession” supports that reading, and this page FLAGS the discrepancy rather than resolving it; and Phase 2 “expected to be completed in 2021”, which is consistent with the 17 February 2021 CCC and is credited. Fourteen readings across ten surfaces on a project with two registrations — and worse in kind than the ten-reading cases this site has reported before, because two of these readings belong to a different building entirely.

What this page does not publish, and why

This page publishes the two TEDUH public registry price bands, each labelled a registry band and expressly not a filed-advertisement band, and nothing else in the way of a figure. Five families of number exist on this project and all five are withheld in full, and this page names which KIND each one is, because the kind is the point. (i) One portal record publishes an implied rental-yield statistic as a project statistic. Its existence is recorded, the surface is named, and the figure is withheld from this page, from its structured data and from every line on it. And the finding that survives without the figure is worth more than the figure: that same record’s own rental median and rental range BOTH read “N/A”, so it publishes a derived return it cannot support from its own data. (ii) Two publishers carry a resale asking floor, a listing per-square-foot band and a transacted per-square-foot band, all below the registry minimum. They are withheld — and this page says which kind of below-minimum figure it is withholding, because otherwise the withholding itself reads as concealing a defect that does not exist: these are SUBSALE asking figures on a building certified complete five to six years ago, which is entirely unremarkable, and NOT a developer “from” figure sitting below a statutory floor, which would be a finding. (iii) A 2016-era editorial price range and a per-square-foot figure whose low end sits below the registry minimum — developer-era in kind, withheld, existence recorded, and published as the weaker finding it is because it rests on ONE publisher only. (iv) A named valuer’s per-square-foot entry figure, quoted by a national newspaper in 2018 — withheld for ACCURACY and not under a compliance bar, because a per-square-foot figure cannot be reconciled against a per-unit registry band without a built-up pairing and no built-up on this project is filed. The publishable half is the characterisation, and it is published: that valuer described this project’s entry pricing as among the HIGHEST in the Sentul area at the time. (v) A rental “from” figure and a published maintenance rate, both withheld: the rent sits on the same surface as the rental-yield claim and is its direct input, and the maintenance rate — publishable in principle — is carried here only as “one portal publishes a maintenance rate”, because its own surface pairs it with the withheld figures. AND THE CLEAN HALF, WHICH IS WORTH AS MUCH AND IS PUBLISHED HERE AS A CREDIT. Across twenty-two surfaces — including two audited annual reports, the developer’s own marketing host, its project record, its disclaimer page and five portals — there is no nett price, no rebate, no discount, no promotion, no freebie, no incentive, no commission figure, no leaseback and no guaranteed rental return anywhere on this project. And there is no filed advertisement that could have carried a Diskaun Bumiputera field, so that line of the compliance sweep does not arise on this project at all. That is unusual, and it is stated as a credit rather than passed over. Finally, the standing rules this page follows on every project. The registry bands above are public record; they are not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer; they are per REGISTRATION and not per unit or per type; and on a building handed over in 2020 and 2021 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.

Sentul Point Suite Apartments — the answers, from the register and nowhere else

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

Published 14 October 2026 · last verified 14 October 2026. Sources: the public KPKT TEDUH register developer record for code 14395 and the project records 14395-1 and 14395-2, with the full serial walk through 14395-3, read 14 October 2026; six developer-search strings run against a same-session positive control; the HIMS document store in both path forms on both registrations, each returning a client error against a positive control that resolved; the Federal Territories’ own affordable-housing register, read end to end across all ten pages and 89 rows; the GreenRE certification register across all four tiers plus a certification-entry list read at two offsets; two of the developer group’s own AUDITED annual reports and its listed parent’s audited annual report; and the named press, portal and construction-register records cited above, including IQI’s own guide for the Federal Territory foreign-buyer floor. No figure, acreage, distance, rating, award or image on this page comes from any other development, any other licensee, any other development on this street, or any other project by this group. · Marketing information, not an offer. Confirm every figure against the register, the title and a current valuation before you commit.