The Atas @ Taman Desa, Kuala Lumpur — the Ministry’s register flags it Lewat, late, at 33.27% built, and this page prints both readings of that

Seven things about The Atas that only the filings will tell you

None of the seven is on the developer’s website, and none is on a portal. Each one comes out of the two filed advertisement generations, the public register, a Bursa announcement or a named newspaper.

The four filed layouts

Four built-ups, four bedroom and bathroom counts, four unit-number pairs — all of it from the superseded filed advertisement, which is the only document anywhere that carries a built-up schedule for this project. The current filing’s whole extractable text runs to 1,358 characters and contains no schedule at all. The filed schedule, The Edge and both PropertyGuru records agree on every built-up, which is rare enough in this series to be worth saying.

Type A / A1 — 1,156 sq ft

3+1 bedrooms · 3 bathrooms · 1 kitchen sink (Singki Dapur) · filed unit numbers 03A and 05

1,156 sq ft3+1 bed3 bathPlan subject caption-published

Filed as A / A1 at 1,156 K.P.S — the filing states square feet directly and publishes no square-metre conversion, so none is offered here. The plan image is caption-published: the developer’s page prints the heading TYPE A above it and links a 360° tour whose own address names both the project and the type. The A / A1 pairing is a mirror-plan convention, not two types.

Ask for the Type A price and plan

Type B / B1 — 1,156 sq ft

3+1 bedrooms · 3 bathrooms · 1 kitchen sink · filed unit numbers 01 and 08

1,156 sq ft3+1 bed3 bathPlan subject INFERRED

Filed as B / B1 at 1,156 K.P.S, the same built-up as Type A but a different unit-number pair on the floor plate. Be precise about this image: it is Type B by position only. The heading TYPE B does precede it on the developer’s page, but Type B is the one layout with no 360° tour link, so there is no second, independent confirmation of the subject the way there is for A, C and D. Graded inferred, and labelled that way rather than quietly upgraded.

Ask for the Type B price and plan

Type C / C1 — 1,321 sq ft

4 bedrooms · 3 bathrooms · 1 kitchen sink · filed unit numbers 02 and 07

1,321 sq ft4 bed3 bathPlan subject caption-published

Filed as C / C1 at 1,321 K.P.S with four bedrooms and no utility room in the filed count. Caption-published: printed heading TYPE C plus a 360° tour address naming the project and the type. The register corroborates the room counts only at summary level (bilik 3, 4, tandas 3, 4) and files luas: 0, i.e. no built-up.

Ask for the Type C price and plan

Type D / D1 — 1,518 sq ft

4+1 bedrooms · 4 bathrooms · 1 kitchen sink · filed unit numbers 03 and 06

1,518 sq ft4+1 bed4 bathPlan subject caption-publishedThe largest filed type

Filed as D / D1 at 1,518 K.P.S, the largest filed type. Caption-published on the printed heading plus a 360° tour address. Maxim Global’s managing director Tan Sri Gan Seong Liam told The Edge that “not surprisingly, the biggest layout has received the most interest since the preview at end-March”. No filed document prints a price for this or any other type, which is exactly why the foreign-buyer question below cannot be answered from the public record.

Ask for the Type D price and plan

Provenance, stated plainly. Every built-up, bedroom count, bathroom count and unit number above comes from the superseded filed advertisement at files/19088/19088-3/, corroborated independently by The Edge and by both PropertyGuru records. The filing prints no price per type — both generations state a single band for all three blocks — so no per-type figure appears here. Two numbers on the current filing are traps and are not areas: 12,700mm and 14,100mm appear with no label and are dimension lines in millimetres on a plan sheet (12,700 mm is about 41.7 ft). No source states whether A/A1, B/B1, C/C1 and D/D1 are mirror pairs or substantively different units; the filing gives one built-up per letter pair and no plan distinguishing them. Eight unit numbers per floor across 27 storeys comes to about 216 against the 208 filed per block, which is consistent with facility and service floors taking plate area — our arithmetic, for sanity only.

Developer imagery, captioned only as far as the evidence goes

What is missing from the image record, stated rather than filled in. There is no site plan, no location map and no exterior elevation drawing on the developer’s host — only the four unit plans and the single Level 3A facilities plan. There is no construction-progress photograph on any reachable source, which is a real gap on a project the register puts at 33.27% and flags late. No image of this project can reach this site’s highest caption grade, because the developer’s host has no content management interface to read a title from: a wrong address there returns the site’s own home page rather than an error, and the same catch-all swallows the content API, so there is no way to date an asset or confirm a subject from the source. The four unit plans earn their captions from printed headings and, for three of them, a 360° tour address that names the project and the type. Nothing has been substituted, and no stock photograph appears on this page.

Where it is, and every distance the developer publishes

Credit the developer: theatas.com.my publishes 34 numbered distances across four tables. That is among the most generous distance disclosure in this series, where “the developer publishes no distances at all” has been the honest answer six times. Every figure below is the developer’s own, reproduced as printed. None is ours, nothing is estimated and no place has been added. The caveat is equally real: not one third-party source publishes a competing distance for any of these places, so there is no spread to cross-check against — the developer’s table is the only distance source in existence for this project, and it is unverified by anyone.

Residensi The Atas — the filed and registered particulars

This is the part of the page that matters. Everything in the table is either printed in a filed advertisement on the Ministry of Housing and Local Government’s HIMS portal or published in the Ministry’s public TEDUH register. The developer’s own website contributes not one statutory particular — no licence number, no permit, no plan reference, no tenure, no unit count, no storey count, no completion date, no land area and no price. Four of its pages were read separately to establish that.

Read on 13 October 2026 from the filed advertisements under serial 19088 phase 3 on HIMS (both the superseded files/19088/19088-3/ path and the current P45 path) and from api/projek-swasta/19088-3 on TEDUH. Contract schedule Jadual H; original construction period 36 Bulan; development information Berfasa (phased); developer status Aktif; mempunyaiKesalahan: null; projek_sakit 0 and projek_terbengkalai 0 against this licensee.

The statutory Harga Jualan Unit range and the public register band are reproduced here because they are filed and public records of the sale and purchase price. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. They are not a per-unit figure, and no page can give you one: ask for the price list and the sale and purchase agreement at the sales gallery, and get the figure for your specific unit in writing.

The register says Lewat — late. Here are both readings, and the reader can weigh them

At 33.27% construction progress the Ministry’s register carries Lewat in its overall status field for this project. That is the register’s own word, it gives no reason for it, and this page does not invent one. Two things pull in opposite directions and both belong here. For the developer. The main building contract was let to Binastra Builders Sdn Bhd for RM283.33 million and commenced 17 September 2024 for 32 months, which puts the contractor’s own programme end at about 17 May 2027 — six days after the original statutory vacant-possession date of 11 May 2027. So the original contractual date was arithmetically out of reach from the day the contract was signed, and the approved 16-month extension reads much more like a re-baselining than an unexplained slip. Credit two further things: the current filed brochure prints the revised date (Sept 2028) rather than quietly leaving the old one standing, and propertysifu discloses the arithmetic explicitly as “36 months + 16 months” — the only consumer source that does. Against it. From 17 September 2024 to 13 October 2026 is about 24.9 of the 32 contracted months, roughly 78% of the programme elapsed against 33.27% built. And the revised statutory date of 11 September 2028 sits about 48 months from contract commencement against a 32-month contract — roughly 16 months beyond the contractor’s own programme end, and no document explains the difference. Both readings are printed because both are true, and this page predicts nothing. What a buyer can do is concrete: get the vacant-possession date written into the Schedule H agreement for the specific unit, get the liquidated-damages clause explained, and ask for a dated progress report.

Two filed generations for one phase, and the seven fields they disagree on

Both HIMS path forms are live under serial 19088 and they are two generations of the same phase, not two phases. They disagree on seven fields: expected completion (April 2027 to Sept 2028); the statutory minimum (RM808,000 to RM849,000, up RM41,000); the statutory maximum (RM1,101,000 to RM1,157,000, up RM56,000); the advertising and sales permit field (a bare dash to a field cut off entirely); Sekatan Kepentingan (absent to present); Baki Unit (absent to 249 unsold); and the building plan reference (a garbled text layer to the readable DBKL.JKB.BP S1 OSC 2023 3207(23)). There is a table of all seven in the questions below. And the provenance needs stating plainly, because it is counter-intuitive: the SUPERSEDED filing is the richer document. It is the only source anywhere for the lot number, the street address, the built-up schedule, the fittings schedule and the facilities legend. The current P45 filing’s entire extractable text layer runs to 1,358 characters. So wherever this page gives a built-up, a lot or a facility, it is quoting a superseded advertisement, and it says so. One field on the superseded generation is named but never valued on this page. That filing carries a Bumiputera field; under this agency’s compliance instruction the existence of the field is recorded and its value is withheld. See “what this page does not publish, and why” below, which names this paragraph as the one place that mention is made.

The registry price band is a splice — and its third row carries a fourth figure from nowhere

To the sen: the current filed advertisement states RM849,000.00 – RM1,157,000.00 for all three blocks. The superseded one states RM808,000.00 – RM1,101,000.00. The public register files RM808,000.00 – RM1,157,000.00 on two of its three rows and RM818,000.00 – RM1,157,000.00 on the third. So the registry band pairs the superseded minimum with the current maximum, a combination that matches no filed advertisement at all — and row three’s RM818,000 matches neither generation. This matters commercially: the portals scrape the register, so the RM808,000 in public circulation is a superseded filed minimum, RM41,000 below what the developer has actually filed. This page publishes the current filed band as the filed band, shows the register’s band as the public record it is, names the splice, and names the orphan figure without resolving it. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.

Licence and permit: renewed forward, not lapsed — and two more placeholder variants on one scheme

Both filed brochures print developer licence 19088/12-2025/0149(A), which expired 29 December 2025. Read alone that looks like a lapse. It is not, and this page says so explicitly because it would be easy to write the wrong thing here. The register shows the licence renewed forward to 19088/12-2030/0655(R), beginning 30 December 2025, the day after the old one ended, and running to 29 December 2030. Always check the register before writing “lapsed”. The advertising and sales permit is current: 19088-3/04-2027/0356(A)-(S), 30 April 2024 to 29 April 2027, marked Aktif, with about 198 days of permit remaining as at 13 October 2026. A (N) twin exists on identical dates and is marked Tidak Aktif; the register’s (A) row is the one published here. The permit history for this phase shows only those two rows — no earlier permit, no unpermitted interval, no renewal history — and the permit was issued 19 days before the launch. The sharp point for a buyer: the permit expires 29 April 2027, about 16 months before the governing vacant-possession date of 11 September 2028. A current licence is not a current permit, and a permit is not a completion guarantee. Whether it will be renewed is published by nobody. And the permit field itself produced two more placeholder variants on this one scheme: a bare dash in the superseded generation and a field cut off entirely in the current one. Neither filed brochure prints the number. The lapse question was still assessable only because the register prints it — and note that propertysifu prints both the licence and the permit without labelling their validity dates, which is exactly how a licence date gets mistaken for a permit date.

The delivery record of licence 19088 — all three phases, and it cuts both ways

No consumer source publishes any of this. All three registered phases under this licence are in Taman Desa under the same licensee, and there is a table of them in the questions below. In plain words: this licensee has delivered two buildings in this neighbourhood and both have certificates of completion in hand — 19088-1 The Address, 376 units, certificate 30 August 2022, and 19088-2 Residensi The Address II, 202 units, certificate 7 March 2023. Both also took a 29-month extension and used almost all of it, each finishing roughly 22 and a half months after the date its own first purchasers’ contracts originally pointed to, and each landing about six and a half months inside its revised date. And both records show no vacant-possession date at all (vp: "-" on each), so when keys actually changed hands is not on the public record. The fair reading of a mixed record includes this: The Atas has taken a shorter extension than either sibling — 16 months, not 29. Two filing details for completeness: both siblings ran on (P)-suffixed twelve-month permits through 2017 to 2022, which carry no -(L) or -(S) tail; and 19088-2 shows a 15-day unpermitted interval in December 2021 between two permits — minor, and on the sibling, not on The Atas, whose own permit history shows no gap. Both siblings’ permits have since expired, which is unremarkable for completed buildings.

The interest restriction, and what it costs every owner — not just foreign ones

The current filed advertisement carries a Sekatan Kepentingan, quoted in the filing as: “Tanah ini tidak boleh dipindah milik, disewakan, digadai atau ditanggung … tanpa kebenaran Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur” — the land may not be transferred, leased, charged or encumbered without the consent of the Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory Land Executive Committee. The superseded generation does not carry it. This is a consent requirement on the land itself, so it bites on every dealing: every resale, every lease, every charge and therefore every refinancing, for every owner, foreign or local. It is also the strongest single foreign-buyer signal available in a Malaysian filing. Ask for the consent process, the expected timeline and who pays the fee, in writing, before you book.

No reverse, affordable or controlled-price allocation exists on this scheme — said plainly

There is no -RMM, -AH, -NPT or -OMU suffix pair under this serial, so the reverse-allocation and affordable-allocation trap simply does not apply here. The filed type codes are A/A1, B/B1, C/C1 and D/D1 and nothing else; the filed built-ups run 1,156 to 1,518 sq ft, far above any Rumah Mampu Milik or RUMAWIP envelope; and the register records no controlled-price component, no quota row and no state-consent price ceiling. The three register rows are identical in type and differ only by RM10,000 at the floor. So the RM808,000 figure in public circulation is a superseded filed minimum, not an affordable band. For contrast and for honesty: the same group bought land in Taman Setapak in 2021 expressly for 604 Rumah Mampu Milik units — a different site, a different company and no bearing on this project at all.

Density: 173.3 units per acre on the only acreage anyone publishes — and the denominators refused

624 units on 3.6 acres is 173.3 units per acre. That is our arithmetic on a press acreage and it is labelled as such wherever it appears on this page. The acreage comes from The Edge Malaysia (“a 3.6-acre leasehold plot along Jalan Taman Bukit Desa”, May 2024) and is corroborated by PropertyGuru — two independent publishers, and the figure arrives attached to the same street the superseded filing prints for Lot 58461. That street match is what makes it usable at all. There is no filed denominator. Keluasan Tanah is NOT PRINTED in either generation and the register files keluasan: "0 mps" with luas: 0 on all three component rows. That was checked here and it is genuinely a not-filed value, not a built-up in square metres — unlike four other projects in this series where the same field turned out to hold an area. Two of the three corroboration routes could not be run. No land-transaction record for this site was found (the three Maxim Global land announcements located are all other sites), and no gross floor area or plot ratio is published by anyone, so there is no independent check. The contractor’s scope — three blocks of 208 over four podium levels and five basement levels of parking — is qualitatively consistent with a small, deep, tight site rather than a large one, which is a sanity check and not a measurement. Seven candidate denominators were refused, and one of them is genuinely dangerous: Aetas Taman Desa’s 3.9 acres — a different developer’s land for a different project, within 0.3 of an acre of this figure, so a mix-up would be invisible. The others: Aetas Seputeh’s 1.57 acres; the register’s 0 mps; the 12,700mm and 14,100mm millimetre dimension lines from the filed plan sheet; “Taman Desa” as a whole neighbourhood; Builtamont Development’s separate 1,236-unit Taman Desa site; and Maxim Global’s 5.8 acres in Mukim Damansara and 9,775 sq m in Taman Setapak. Consequence for the developer’s own “Low Density” tile: on the only sourced acreage it is not supported, and PropertyGuru repeats it in a worse form — “a low density of just 624 units” — which describes a count as a density. The honest version of the claim needs no arithmetic: every one of the 624 units is 1,156 sq ft or larger with at least three bedrooms and three bathrooms. Large units, not low density.

Gross development value: the arithmetic reconciles, and that is a finding too

RM580 million is the announced gross development value, carried by two independent publishers (The Star, 12 May 2024, and The Edge). Against the filed figures: 624 × RM849,000 = RM529,776,000 and 624 × RM1,157,000 = RM721,968,000; on the superseded generation, 624 × RM808,000 = RM504,192,000 and 624 × RM1,101,000 = RM687,024,000. RM580 million sits cleanly inside the minima and maxima sums on both generations, so there is no stale-generation signal in it. All four sums are our arithmetic on filed figures. This series names a gross development value that fails to reconcile often enough to owe a clean one a mention.

Take-up: two government-derived figures 15 months apart, and a public prediction that did not hold

The current filed advertisement records Baki Unit — units remaining — as 249 unsold (Blok A 103, Blok B 89, Blok C 57), on a filing dated about 27 May 2025. That is 375 of 624 sold, about 60.1%. propertysifu, citing the KPKT filing as at 28 August 2026, reports 522 of 624 sold, i.e. 102 unsold, about 83.7%. Both are government-derived and they are 147 units apart — but they are also 15 months apart, so they are not necessarily inconsistent. Both are printed here with their dates and their sources, and no conclusion is drawn about which is current. Neither is today’s stock. And the developer’s own public prediction did not hold. Deputy managing director Jayden Gan Kuok Chyuan told The Star on 12 May 2024 that he expected “a complete sell-out by the end of this year” — 2024. The developer’s own filed advertisement roughly a year later records 249 units still unsold. The quote is attributed, the filed figure is printed, and the reader can draw the conclusion.

Green certification and awards: none — and the decoy that must not migrate

No GreenRE certification is recorded for this project. All four tier tables were read. The Platinum register closed cleanly at 95 rows with its last row complete — a genuine clean negative, and the eleventh consistent Platinum run in this series. Gold (130 rows), Silver (141) and Bronze (about 332) were each truncated, so for those three the honest statement is no entry in the reachable portion of the register. The Bronze certification-entry list was also read at depth and covered 266 entries from 4 April 2024 to 9 December 2025 — a window that covers this project’s permit date and launch, with no match, which makes that negative materially stronger than the truncated table alone. One honest limitation: the Silver certification-entry list only covers 10 October 2014 to 1 July 2025 and therefore misses its own table’s 16 February 2026 row, so that list is itself only partly visible. GBI’s directory has been unreachable throughout this batch and is unchecked rather than negative. The developer claims nothing green on any surface. The microsite’s only environmental items are an EV charging bay and a pet-friendly corner. The Edge records the deputy managing director speaking to “the project’s sustainability features” and names no scheme, no rating and no certification; that is neither certification nor targeting. The most seductive decoy in this research must not migrate onto this page, so here it is by name. The GreenRE Silver register carries THE ADDRESS JOHOR BAHRU – RESIDENSI MAXIM PELANGI, developer Maxim Pelangi Sdn Bhd, provisional certification, tool RES v3.3, dated 16 February 2026. Same group, and the same “The Address” marketing name this licence’s two completed siblings carry — but a different licensee, in a different state. A claim that “Maxim’s The Address is GreenRE Silver” would be true in Johor Bahru and false for every home in Taman Desa. Also refused, each on a different licensee: Menara Desa (a non-residential tool), Desa Cemerlang Industrial Park plots 3 and 4 (an industrial tool, and a licensee whose own name contains the word Platinum — which is not a rating), Residensi Desa Timur, Aetas Seputeh, Aetas Damansara and AVÉA. And no award of any kind was found for Residensi The Atas, for The Address, for The Address II, for Kaisar Maxim Sdn. Bhd. or for Maxim Global Berhad — property, design, developer and CIDB QLASSIC searches returned nothing but resale listings. The one thing a project at a third complete could legitimately hold is a QLASSIC workmanship score, which is not a design or sustainability award; no QLASSIC result for this project or either sibling was found. The group’s own website is closed to automated reading on both address forms, so if an awards page exists it could not be read.

A documented incident on the sibling site — reported with attribution, and not characterised

A buyer searching this developer’s name will find this story, and this page is more useful for addressing it than for leaving it out. says.com, 14 February 2020, reports that part of the Taman Desa condominium project “The Address” collapsed that afternoon, first surfaced by an EdgeProp Malaysia Facebook post at 4.44 pm. The article names the developer as “pemaju Maxim Holdings Sdn Bhd”, names no contractor, reports no casualties, and records that residents had objected to the project since 2017 and had sought to defer its approval during a judicial review then ongoing. As at 6.30 pm that day the developer had not issued a statement. What that is, precisely: it concerns The Address, registered scheme 19088-1 and 19088-2 — a different registered scheme whose permit predates this one by seven years. The Atas’s own building plan was approved in 2023 and its permit issued 30 April 2024. It is recorded here because it is the same licensee and the same neighbourhood, and because it falls inside the window of the siblings’ 29-month extensions. This page makes no causal claim, draws no inference about this project, and implies no wrongdoing. Alongside it, the register records mempunyaiKesalahan: null — no offence flag — and projek_sakit 0 and projek_terbengkalai 0 against this licensee. No follow-up report, no finding and no outcome of the judicial review was found.

The Atas is not Aetas, and not The Address — six developments, four developer groups, one neighbourhood

Atas is Malay for upmarket. Aetas is Avaland’s product line. One letter apart, same neighbourhood, unrelated companies — and the confusion is live in the market, which is why it is addressed on the page rather than assumed away. The Atas is Residensi The Atas, KPKT 19088-3, licensee Kaisar Maxim Sdn. Bhd. (978433-P), leasehold 99 years to 30 March 2123, 624 units, 3.6 acres, gross development value RM580 million. Aetas Taman Desa is a different development by MCT Bhd, now Avaland Berhad: 3.9 acres across three parcels, freehold, bought for RM64.6 million, 236 units, gross development value about RM500 million (StarProperty, 2 March 2023), with no KPKT registration found. Freehold cannot be the same title as a 99-year lease — that alone settles it, and the unit count, the developer group, the parcel structure and the gross development value all agree. Aetas Seputeh is a third and separate thing: 1.57 acres bought from HPC Development Sdn Bhd for RM58 million on 23 February 2023, 126 boutique apartments; this site has its own page for it. GreenRE confirms a separate company per Aetas project. Keep apart as well: The Address and Residensi The Address II, the two completed phases on this same licence; M Aspira in the same neighbourhood, which is a Mah Sing scheme; and a separate 1,236-unit Taman Desa project for Builtamont Development Sdn Bhd that shares only a contractor.

What this page does not publish, and why

This agency works under one absolute compliance instruction, and this page applies it literally. No discount figure, no rebate figure, no nett price, no promotion and no commission information appears anywhere on this page, from any source and whatever its provenance. Three consequences follow, and this paragraph names every place on the page where the rule bites. First. The superseded filed advertisement carries a Bumiputera field. The sub-section above headed “Two filed generations for one phase, and the seven fields they disagree on” states that the field exists and does not print its value, and that paragraph is the one deliberate second mention of the word on this page. It appears nowhere else, and no figure for it appears anywhere. Second. Two independent publishers carry a “from RM” figure that sits below the current filed statutory minimum of RM849,000 — one of them roughly RM100,000 below it, matching no government source at all. Both figures are withheld. This page records only that the discrepancy exists and that it spans two independent publishers, counted after collapsing same-group titles. Where one of those publishers reproduces the register’s own RM808,000 floor in its page body, that is a government figure correctly reproduced and it is credited as such above. Third, and this one runs the developer’s way. theatas.com.my publishes no price at all — no “from RM”, no price per square foot, no price table and no statutory panel carrying a stale band. The home page, the floor-plan section, the disclaimer page and the data-protection page were each read separately and none carries a price figure. In a series where a developer’s own panel has more than once carried a stale or a below-floor number, a developer page with no price on it is the clean outcome, and it is credited here by name. What this page does publish, and on what basis: the statutory Harga Jualan Unit range from the legally filed advertisement particulars, and the public register’s own band — each explicitly labelled as such, and each accompanied by not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. For anything beyond the filed range — the figure for a specific unit, what the price list says today, what the sales gallery will put in writing — speak to Louis directly.

Not published by anyone, therefore not on this page

Twenty things a buyer would reasonably ask that no source answers. The car park bay count and the allocation per unit type — absent from both filings and the register, with the contractor’s “five basement levels” the only published description and no number in it. The housing development account number under section 7A and the bank holding it. The landowner (Tuan Tanah) — so whether the registered proprietor must be a party to each sale and purchase agreement is unknown, which is a real conveyancing question for a buyer’s solicitor. Any joint venture and its split — the developer’s disclaimer refers generically to “joint development companies” and names none. The land acquisition for this site: vendor, price and date, searched and not found. The mukim. The reconciliation of Lot 58461 with the contractor’s Lot 481970, and what the contractor’s “(first phase)” refers to. Why the register flags the project Lewat, and against which date. Why the revised statutory date sits about 16 months beyond the contractor’s programme end. The current unsold stock — the two available figures are 17 and 15 months old. Whether the advertising and sales permit will be renewed past 29 April 2027. Per-type prices — and therefore how many units clear the foreign-buyer floor. The ownership, housing-licence status and operator of the shop, laundrette, cafeteria, daycare and kindergarten, and of the rooftop developer’s apartment and the TNB substation. The eight “Major Highways”, none named and none measured. The management corporation, service charge and sinking fund as contracted — only a 2024 press rate exists. Any construction-progress photograph or dated progress report. Any award, QLASSIC score or green certification. Gross floor area and plot ratio, hence no independent check on the 3.6 acres. The outcome of the 2020 judicial review and of the incident reported on the sibling scheme. And whether the filed types A/A1, B/B1, C/C1 and D/D1 are mirror pairs or substantively different units. These are the things Louis goes and asks the developer for in writing. Ask him for the list.

Questions a buyer actually asks about The Atas

Also worth seeing nearby

Published 13 October 2026 · Last verified 13 October 2026. Statutory particulars read on 13 October 2026 from both filed advertisement generations under serial 19088 phase 3 on the Ministry of Housing and Local Government’s HIMS portal — the superseded files/19088/19088-3/ path and the current P45 path — and from the Ministry’s public TEDUH register at api/projek-swasta/19088-3, with the sibling phases 19088-1 and 19088-2 walked for the delivery record. The two filed generations disagree on seven fields and the register’s price band matches neither; all three are printed above. Contractor figures are from the contractor’s Bursa Malaysia announcement via Bernama and World Construction Network. The 3.6-acre site area, the 36 sen per sq ft service charge and the RM580 million gross development value are press and portal figures, labelled as such wherever they appear; densities, monthly service-charge amounts, the lease commencement date and the gross-development-value sums are our arithmetic on those figures and are labelled too. Marketing information, not an offer and not a quotation.