The Queenswoodz @ Bukit Jalil — the developer’s own official microsite opens by describing a project 300 km away in Johor
Read the first paragraph of the project’s own official site, thequeenswoodz.com.my and this is what it says, verbatim: “Nestled in the serene Kebun Teh neighbourhsod, Johor Bahru, this new development offers a harmonious blend of modern design and timeless beauty.” Further down the same page: “Experience the perfect balance of urban living and natural serenity at The Asteriaz @ Kebun Teh.” The misspelling “neighbourhsod” is in the source. The Asteriaz @ Kebun Teh is a different EXSIM project in Johor Bahru — I carry its page on this site, so you can compare the two in two clicks. This is uncorrected template copy from another development sitting on the front page of this one. It is not a typo in a brochure footer; it is the concept paragraph a buyer reads first. That is the clearest argument I can give you for reading the filed statutory schedule rather than the marketing prose — and the filed schedule for this scheme is set out in full further down this page.
No price list, no quotation, no offer. The only selling prices on this page are the statutory Harga Jualan Minima / Maksima from the legally filed advertisement particulars, labelled as such. Three independent sources publish an opening “from” price below the filed statutory minimum of RM744,999; none of those three figures appears on this page.
The Queenswoodz @ Bukit Jalil at a glance
Every figure below is taken from the advertisement brochure filed with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT), HIMS filing 30741-2 unless another source is named beside it. Where the filing leaves a field blank, this block says NOT PRINTED rather than filling it in.
- Registered scheme name, as filed
- The Queenswoodz @ Bukit JalilThe statutory block’s own wording. Metproperty and one IQI Realty marketing site add “Residence”; one agent site adds “Residences”. Neither word is in the filed name.
- Licensed developer (Pemaju)
- EXSIM JALIL LINK SDN BHD — 201401028642 (1104782-X)A single-purpose company. PropertyGuru record 23581 and Metproperty both name “EXSIM Development Sdn Bhd”, which is the group brand entity and would not be the vendor on your sale and purchase agreement.
- Developer licence no.
- 30741/04-2029/0083(N)Valid 19/04/2024 – 18/04/2029, current as at today. Identical to The Kingswoodz’s. A developer licence number is not a project identifier.
- Advertising and sale permit (APDL)
- NOT PRINTED — the field is rendered as
XXXXNo source publishes an APDL number or validity for this scheme, so whether the permit is current cannot be assessed. The licence expiry of 18/04/2029 is not an APDL validity date. - Total units, as filed
- 1,004Block A 494 + Block B 510. Confirmed independently by the main contractor’s own announcement. PropertyGuru 23581 says 1,002, with no explanation for the two-unit difference.
- Blocks and storeys, as filed
- Block A — 494 units, 43 storeys · Block B — 510 units, 44 storeysBoth filed as PANGSAPURI SUITE. The filing and the main contractor’s announcement agree exactly. PropertyGuru says 50 storeys; portal editorial says “approximately 50-51”; Metproperty says a flat 44.
- Development type (Jenis Pembangunan)
- PANGSAPURI SERVIS — serviced apartmentNo office, SOHO or suite-office class is filed. The filed schedule has no studio type at all; its smallest unit is 807 sq ft.
- Statutory selling-price range
- RM744,999 – RM1,278,539The filed Harga Jualan Minima / Maksima. Block A RM747,574 – RM1,278,539; Block B RM744,999 – RM1,278,539. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer.
- Expected completion, as filed
- October 2028The filed tarikh dijangka siap. The main contractor expects 2029 on a 41-month term. Both are published; the filing governs, the contractor’s figure is the conservative one.
- Tenure
- Leasehold — pajakan 99 tahun to 4 March 2123About 96 years unexpired. Both portals print a bare “Leasehold” with no expiry date.
- Restriction in interest (sekatan kepentingan)
- Consent of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur Land Executive Committee is required before the land may be transferred, leased, charged or mortgagedPrinted on the filing in those terms. Ask what consent lead time this adds to a resale or a refinancing.
- Chargee (bebanan)
- United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) BhdSame chargee as The Kingswoodz.
- Approving authority
- Dewan Bandaraya Kuala LumpurBuilding plan reference DBKL.JKB.BPS3 OSC 2025 2271 (10) — a 2025 approval, where Kingswoodz’s is a 2024 one.
- Land title
- PT 50270, Jalan Jalil Perkasa 1From the main contractor’s contract-award announcement, not from the KPKT filing. Kingswoodz sits on Lot 38628 — a different title.
- Land area (keluasan tanah)
- NOT PRINTEDThe field is absent from the filing and no developer source publishes one. Density therefore cannot be computed and none appears on this page.
- Car park (tempat letak kereta)
- NOT PRINTED — the label is printed, the value left blankNo source publishes a bay count, bays per unit, which podium levels are parking, visitor bays or motorcycle bays.
- Filed layout types
- Eight — A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2807 / 807 / 936 / 936 / 1,206 / 1,206 / 1,410 / 1,410 sq ft. The developer’s own layout page publishes none of them in text; it is images only.
- Dual key
- Supported — the filing itself labels the type D2 (Dual Key)And it gives D2 a different room count from D1 at the same 1,410 sq ft: D1 is 4 bed / 3 bath, D2 is 3+1 bed / 3 bath. That is exactly what splitting off a self-contained portion does to a room count.
- Green certification
- None — of any kindThe Queenswoodz is absent from the developer’s own certifications register, which lists twelve other EXSIM projects including The Kingswoodz. This is an absence from the developer’s own records, not merely an absence of evidence.
- Awards
- NoneIt appears nowhere on the developer’s own recognitions page, which runs 2013 to 2026. For a 2025-contracted project that is expected.
- Website printed in the filed advertisement
queenswoodz.com.my— returns 404The live site isthequeenswoodz.com.my. The Kingswoodz filing has the mirror-image defect: it printsthekingswoodz.com.my, which does not resolve, while that project’s live site iskingswoodz.com. EXSIM swapped the two domains between its own two filings.- Commercial component
- Exists, but its count, title and status are NOT PUBLISHEDThe main contractor’s scope covers “commercial units” and “commercial spaces”. The filed statutory block prints only the two residential blocks. Whether any commercial parcel sits inside the 1,004 is unknown.
Jump to what you came for
This page is ordered the way a buyer actually asks questions — starting with the three things the developer’s own documents get wrong about their own project.
Three defects in the developer’s own documents, and what each one costs you
None of these is a portal’s mistake. All three are in material published by EXSIM itself, about its own project. I am not raising them to score a point — I am raising them because each one changes what you should ask for in writing before you sign anything.
1. The official microsite describes a project in Johor Bahru
The concept page of thequeenswoodz.com.my opens “Nestled in the serene Kebun Teh neighbourhsod, Johor Bahru” and later names “The Asteriaz @ Kebun Teh” — a different EXSIM development about 300 km away, whose own page on this site is here. Template copy was left in and never corrected. Consequence: treat every narrative or concept paragraph in this family of projects as unreliable, and quote only project-specific material. The sibling Kingswoodz has the same class of defect inside its filed government brochure, whose narrative page describes a different EXSIM tower in Bukit Bintang.
2. It is a separate registered scheme, not “phase two”
It shares a developer licence with The Kingswoodz — the same number, 30741/04-2029/0083(N), is printed on both filings — but it has its own KPKT filing, its own DBKL building plan, its own land title, its own unit count, its own storey counts, its own statutory price band and its own completion date. Seven filed fields match; nine differ. Portal editorial calls it “the second phase following the successful Kingswoodz project”, which is not supportable as a statutory statement — and in any case it is the fourth contract the same main contractor has taken on that land, not the second of two. The full field-by-field table is in the FAQ.
3. The developer’s own facilities graphic is impossible
The facilities page labels the sky facilities “Level 50”, for both towers. The filed bilangan tingkat is 43 and 44, and the main contractor’s own announcement independently says 43 and 44. A Level 50 facility cannot exist in a 43- or 44-storey block. Either the artwork’s numbering is wrong or the building is taller than both the filing and the builder say. Two sources agree on 43/44 and only the artwork says 50, so this page publishes the sky facilities by name and publishes no level number for them.
The APDL is a literal placeholder
On the filed brochure the No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan field is rendered as XXXX, and so is its validity period. No other source publishes either. So nobody can tell you from public records whether the advertising and sale permit for this scheme is current. The developer licence runs to 18 April 2029 and is current — but a developer licence is not an advertising permit, and this page never presents the one as the other.
A portal record with four errors in one table
PropertyGuru record 23581 misspells the project “The Queenwoodz”, gives 1,002 units against the filed 1,004, gives 50 storeys against the filed 43/44, names the wrong developer — and invents a 1-bedroom type at 484 sq ft that does not exist in the filed schedule at all. The filed smallest type is 807 sq ft. If you are working from that record, you are working from a different building.
Zero green certification — and that absence is the developer’s own
The Queenswoodz appears nowhere on EXSIM’s own certifications register. That register is project-by-project and lists twelve other EXSIM projects, including the sibling Kingswoodz (Silver Provisional, 8 November 2024) and The Rosewoodz @ Bukit Jalil (Silver, final). So this is not an absence of evidence; it is an absence from the developer’s own records. This page does not say “targeting” either: no target is published.
One claim that is supported: the dual key
On several sibling projects a “dual key” claim turns out to have no developer support. Not here. The filed schedule labels the type D2 (Dual Key) itself, and gives it 3+1 bedrooms / 3 bathrooms against D1’s 4 bedrooms / 3 bathrooms at the identical 1,410 sq ft — internally consistent with a plan that splits off a self-contained portion. One IQI Realty marketing site calls D2 “4 bed / 3 bath dual key”, which contradicts the filing. Trust the filing.
What is filed, what is drawn, and where the two disagree
The facility names below are the developer’s own, read off its facilities page, which publishes them as graphics rather than as a printed schedule. So treat the names as the developer’s and the level numbers as less firm — and in the case of the sky facilities, as contradicted by the filing.
Facilities, grouped as the developer’s own graphics group them
Nothing here is marked “space only” by any source, and no source publishes a car-park bay count. Renders are artists’ impressions.
Ground
- Grand Arrival
- Queen’s Drop-Off
- Queen’s Lounge A
- Queen’s Lounge B
Level 8 — the main facilities deck
- Outdoor Wellness
- Regal Hall
- Leisure Lawn
- Grace Foot Garden
- Queen’s Court
- Wellness Garden
- Jacuzzi Retreat
- Sun Deck
- Biopond
- Leisure Pool
- Queen’s Pavilion
- Kid’s Wonderland
- Shallow Splash
- Green Terrace
- Inspired Lounge
- Queen’s Hall
- Whether this deck is shared between the two towers or split between them is NOT PUBLISHED. The sibling Kingswoodz also puts its deck on Level 8, so the Level 8 attribution is consistent across the pair.
Level 9
- Momentum Studio — the gym. One IQI Realty marketing site calls it a “yoga studio”; the developer does not.
Sky facilities — per tower, and the level number is not publishable
- Sky BBQ A · Moonlight Sip A — Tower A
- Sky BBQ B · Moonlight Sip B — Tower B
- The developer duplicates these per tower rather than sharing them, which is itself a published fact worth having.
- The developer’s graphic labels them “Level 50”. The filed storey counts are 43 and 44, confirmed by the main contractor. This page therefore publishes no level for them.
Published by portals and agents only — not by the developer
- “Infinity pool”, “sky lounge”, “sky garden”, “multipurpose hall”, “reading room”, “co-working spaces” — portal editorial. The developer publishes a Leisure Pool and a Shallow Splash, not an infinity pool.
- “Yoga studios”, “children’s play areas”, “landscaped central parks”, “EV-ready carparks” — an IQI Realty independent marketing site. The EV claim has no developer source and the filing carries no car-park line at all.
- “Wading pool”, “garden lobby”, “lobby lounge”, “gymnasium”, “multi-purpose hall” — Metproperty, a generic category list with no level attribution and none of the developer’s own facility names.
- “Star-gazing lawn” and “lunar-themed landscaping” — the developer’s own concept page, contradicted by the developer’s own facilities list, which names Leisure Lawn, Green Terrace and Wellness Garden and no star-gazing lawn. The two developer pages disagree with each other.
- A service charge of RM0.42 per sq ft including sinking fund — a single agent site’s claim. The developer publishes no service charge, and that claim is silent on whether a master-community charge sits on top of it.
Dates — and the two that are not dates at all
The eight layout types, exactly as filed — and the six published schedules that disagree with them
This is the schedule in the filed brochure, and unlike the sibling Kingswoodz filing it is clean. Eight types, four built-ups. The square-metre figures are the developer’s own, printed beside each sq ft figure; I checked all four and they round correctly (807 sq ft = 74.97 m², 936 = 86.96, 1,206 = 112.04, 1,410 = 130.99). No unit count per type and no type-to-block assignment is published by anyone.
Type A1 (Balkoni) — 807 sq ft
The smallest unit in the development. The (Balkoni) suffix is the developer’s own, and it is what distinguishes A1 from A2 at the identical built-up. Note what is not here: there is no studio type and no studio-office type anywhere in the filed schedule. That is the clearest structural difference between this scheme and EXSIM’s non-HDA office-suite towers, which are built around 344–678 sq ft studio-office types.
Type A2 (Tanpa Balkoni) — 807 sq ft
Identical built-up to A1, without the balcony — again, the developer’s own suffix. PropertyGuru 23581 publishes an “810 sq ft” 2-bedroom that is not in the filed schedule, alongside a 484 sq ft 1-bedroom that does not exist at all.
Type B1 (Balkoni) — 936 sq ft
Three bedrooms, two bathrooms, with a balcony. Every published third-party schedule agrees with the filing on B’s 936 sq ft — this is the one type nobody gets wrong.
Type B2 (Tanpa Balkoni) — 936 sq ft
The same 936 sq ft without the balcony. Most agent schedules collapse B1 and B2 into a single “Type B” and drop the balcony distinction entirely, which matters if you care whether you are buying the balcony.
Type C1 — 1,206 sq ft
3+1 bedrooms and three bathrooms. Two published sources give Type C two bathrooms — portal editorial and one agent microsite — and that agent site also publishes the built-up as 1,210 sq ft rather than the filed 1,206. PropertyGuru 23581 files 1,206 sq ft as a “4-Bedroom”. The filing says 3+1 bed, 3 bath, 1,206 sq ft.
Type C2 — 1,206 sq ft
Identical to C1 on every published field: same built-up, same bedrooms, same bathrooms — and the developer prints no (Balkoni) / (Tanpa Balkoni) suffix for this pair as it does for A and B. So what distinguishes C1 from C2 is genuinely not published. It may be a mirrored plan. Do not assume, and get it in writing before you choose between them.
Type D1 — 1,410 sq ft
Four bedrooms, three bathrooms, the largest filed type. Portal editorial collapses D1 and D2 into one type described as “4 bedrooms or dual-key configurations”, which hides the fact that they are two separately filed types with two different room counts.
Type D2 (Dual Key) — 1,410 sq ft
The dual-key claim on this type is supported by the developer’s own filed material, which is not something I can say on every project in this family. The filing labels the type “D2 (Dual Key)” itself, and gives it 3+1 bedrooms / 3 bathrooms against D1’s 4 bedrooms / 3 bathrooms at the same 1,410 sq ft — which is exactly what splitting off a self-contained lockable portion does to a room count. One IQI Realty marketing site calls D2 “4 bed / 3 bath dual key”; the filing says 3+1 / 3. Which portion is the lockable unit, its area, and whether it has its own door off the common corridor are NOT PUBLISHED.
How badly the published schedules disagree. The filing has eight types. Most agent sites publish five, portal editorial publishes four, and PropertyGuru 23581 publishes four unnamed bedroom-count buckets — while the developer’s own layout page publishes none of them in text at all, because it is images only. Every marketed schedule in circulation is therefore a third party’s transcription of the filed one. Metproperty publishes no per-type built-up whatsoever, only a range beginning at “0 sqft”. Three independent sources publish an opening “from” price below the filed statutory minimum of RM744,999, each with a different figure; none of those three figures appears anywhere on this page. The filing also prints a per-type specification and electrical schedule (reinforced-concrete structure, engineered wood doors, aluminium-framed windows, ceramic tiling, 14–18 light points, 4–5 fan points, 16–18 socket outlets, air-conditioning points varying by type) but no room-by-room list and no floor-to-ceiling height.
Gallery — and exactly how the subject of each image is sourced
How the subjects on this page are graded, and what that grading is worth. The developer’s Queenswoodz gallery prints a caption beside each thumbnail, so the facility subjects here are caption-published. They are not confirmed against a content-management title: exsim.com.my runs WordPress, but its REST API returns 404, so no CMS title could be read for any image on this project. The eight renders and two site photographs used on this page are the files already published on the earlier version of this page on this site since August 2026, and their subject basis is the filename as published here, corroborated by the fact that the developer caption-publishes those same subject names — Grand Arrival, Queen’s Court, Wellness Garden, Leisure Pool, Sun Deck, Sky BBQ, Shallow Splash — in its own gallery. Two images in this site’s library are deliberately not used. They carry “Tower A facade” and “Tower B facade” filenames, and nothing supports that split: the developer’s own gallery captions its facade renders only as sequence labels (“Facade 2”, “Facade 4”), which are not elevations and name no block. Two towers of 43 and 44 storeys by the same architect in the same family look alike, so I would be guessing. I have omitted them rather than mislabel them. One genuinely useful separator exists for telling this project’s renders from The Kingswoodz’s, and it is worth knowing if you are comparing marketing material: the whole Queenswoodz gallery sits under the developer’s /2025/12/ upload path with “Queen’s”-prefixed captions, while the whole Kingswoodz gallery sits under /2024/08/ with “King’s”-prefixed captions, and no facility name is shared between the two. Every render is an artist’s impression, subject to change and to the approval of the relevant authorities.
Location: the developer publishes no distance to anything, and the LRT figure is contested two-fold
The site is PT 50270, Jalan Jalil Perkasa 1, Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur — the title reference comes from the main contractor’s contract-award announcement, not from the KPKT filing, which prints no address. The developer’s own location page carries a “Location Map” heading and a graphic and publishes no named place with a distance and no named place with a travel time, in text, at all. Bukit Jalil marketing leans hard on Pavilion Bukit Jalil and the LRT; this developer publishes a figure for neither and does not name the station. Every figure below is a third party’s and is attributed. I have estimated nothing and filled in nothing.
The map pin is the street, not the lot. The title reference PT 50270 is the main contractor’s, and the sibling Kingswoodz sits on a different title (Lot 38628) on the same street — so distances published for one cannot be transferred to the other. No source publishes this scheme’s land area.
Rail — three sources, three answers, no developer figure
- Awan Besar LRT station, Sri Petaling line — “500 m walking distance via covered walkway” per an IQI Realty independent marketing site.
- Awan Besar LRT station — “approximately 450–650 m”, a range, per portal editorial.
- Awan Besar LRT station — “940 m, 11 minutes” per PropertyGuru record 23581.
- 940 m against 500 m is the difference between a genuine walk-to-transit claim and a marketing one. I publish none of them as fact. Note that PropertyGuru’s is the only figure paired with its own walking time, and 940 m at normal walking pace really is about 11 minutes — it is at least internally consistent, which the “500 m” / “8-minute walk to Pavilion” pairing is not.
- The covered walkway one agent describes: who builds it, who maintains it, and whether it serves this land title or the sibling’s is NOT PUBLISHED.
Retail and recreation — what is claimed, by whom
- Pavilion Bukit Jalil — “8-minute walk” (agent) against “approximately 600–750 m” (portal editorial). The developer publishes neither a distance nor a time, and “next door” in a portal headline is not supportable from any source.
- Bukit Jalil Recreational Park and Golf Club — “5-minute walk” (agent). No distance published by anybody.
- Named by some source with no distance published by anyone: Bukit Jalil Golf & Country Resort, Bukit Jalil Stadium and the National Sports Complex, Technology Park Malaysia, International Medical University, Aurora Place Bukit Jalil, Sri Petaling, the MEX, KESAS and Bukit Jalil highways, KLIA, and the KL city centre.
- Also not published by anyone: the nearest school, clinic, wet market or hospital.
Four schemes, one holding — the question nobody answers
- This is one of four EXSIM Jalil Link schemes on a single 17.9-acre Bukit Jalil holding, per the main contractor via The Edge, with cumulative contract value across the four of about RM1.8 billion.
- The Queenswoodz contract scope explicitly includes “infrastructure works”.
- No source publishes a master-community agreement, a shared-infrastructure deed, a shared access-road or drainage arrangement, or any common charge across the four schemes — nor who maintains any of it after handover. Ask who maintains the internal roads, the drainage, the boundary and the security between the four projects, and whether a master-community charge sits on top of this scheme’s own service charge.
Distances and travel times are the named third party’s, not mine and not the developer’s. Where sources disagree, both figures are printed above rather than averaged. The sibling Kingswoodz record on PropertyGuru gives Awan Besar at “3 to 5-minute walk (500 m)” and Pavilion Bukit Jalil at “850–900 metres” — for a different land title, so those figures are not transferable here either and are not used.
The Queenswoodz @ Bukit Jalil — the filed statutory advertisement particulars
This is the spine of the page. Source: the advertisement brochure lodged with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, HIMS filing 30741-2. Malay labels are as printed. Where a field is blank on the filing, the cell reads NOT PRINTED and nothing is substituted for it. The developer publishes no statutory block of its own: neither thequeenswoodz.com.my nor the corporate project page prints a licence number, an APDL, a chargee, a tenure, a land area, a unit count, a storey count or a completion date — so there is no developer-published block to set against this one, and no field on which the two could disagree. The microsite’s terms page prints the licensee’s name and registration number and nothing else statutory.
| Registered scheme name | Licensed developer (Pemaju) | No. Lesen Pemaju | Tempoh sah lesen | APDL (No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan) | Tempoh sah permit iklan | Pihak berkuasa yang meluluskan | No. Pelan Rujukan | Jenis Pembangunan | Pegangan tanah | Sekatan kepentingan | Bebanan | Jumlah unit | Unit and storeys per block | Harga Jualan Minima – Maksima | Tarikh dijangka siap | Keluasan tanah | Tempat letak kereta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Queenswoodz @ Bukit Jalil | EXSIM JALIL LINK SDN BHD [201401028642 (1104782-X)] | 30741/04-2029/0083(N) | 19/04/2024 – 18/04/2029 | NOT PRINTED — rendered as XXXX | NOT PRINTED — rendered as XXXX | DEWAN BANDARAYA KUALA LUMPUR | DBKL.JKB.BPS3 OSC 2025 2271 (10) | PANGSAPURI SERVIS | PAJAKAN 99 TAHUN SEHINGGA 04/03/2123 | Consent of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur Land Executive Committee required before transfer, lease, charge or mortgage | UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BHD | 1,004 | BLOK A: 494 unit PANGSAPURI SUITE, 43 tingkat · BLOK B: 510 unit PANGSAPURI SUITE, 44 tingkat | RM744,999.00 – RM1,278,539.00 across the scheme (Blok A RM747,574.00 – RM1,278,539.00; Blok B RM744,999.00 – RM1,278,539.00) | OCT 2028 | NOT PRINTED | NOT PRINTED — the label is printed, the value left blank |
The two blocks’ filed bands are near-identical — minima RM747,574 and RM744,999, a RM2,575 difference, and an identical maximum — which is consistent with the same layout mix in both towers. The developer does not confirm that, and the unit count per type and the type-to-block assignment are not published by anyone. The land title PT 50270 comes from the main contractor’s announcement, not from this filing, which prints no address.
The statutory selling-price range above is the legally filed Harga Jualan Minima / Maksima and is published here because it is a public filed particular. It is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and it does not tell you the price of any particular unit or type. How the filed particulars were located, for anyone who wants to repeat the check: the APDL shortcut could not be used because the APDL is unpublished, so the HIMS folder was reached by walking outward from the licence serial 30741 found on a portal record for the sibling project — 30741-1 is The Kingswoodz, 30741-2 is this scheme, and 30741-3 returns 404, so licence 30741 carries exactly two filings.
Has the advertising permit lapsed? The check cannot be performed, and here is exactly why
On the filed brochure the No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan field and its validity period are both rendered as the literal placeholder XXXX, and no other published source gives an APDL number or validity for this scheme. So nobody can establish from public records whether the permit under which this project is being advertised is current. The developer licence 30741/04-2029/0083(N) runs to 18 April 2029 and is current — but a developer licence is not an advertising and sale permit, and the 2029 date must never be presented to you as APDL validity. If you need the APDL it has to come from the sales gallery or the back page of a physical brochure, and it is the first thing on my list to ask for.
Foreign buyers — Kuala Lumpur, and why this project is a genuinely borderline case
The site is in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, where the published minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer has been RM1,000,000, with Economic Planning Unit consent where it applies. The filed statutory band here is RM744,999 to RM1,278,539, which straddles that threshold — so eligibility may differ type by type within the same development, and the filing does not publish a price per type, so no source lets you work out which types clear it. No source addresses foreign eligibility for this scheme at all. This must be confirmed against the current Federal Territory guideline and in writing from the developer before a foreign buyer commits. (For contrast, the sibling Kingswoodz’s filed maximum of RM881,820 sits entirely below that threshold — a real difference between the two schemes, and another reason not to treat them as one.) For comparison, Selangor Zone 1 and Zone 2 require RM2,000,000 and apply to strata and gated landed strata only, while Zone 3 — Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam — requires RM1,000,000.
Construction progress — what percentage is published
None. No completion percentage is published for this scheme by the developer, by the filing or by any portal. The only evidence of physical progress anyone publishes is the developer’s own site-progress photographs, two of which are in the gallery above, and no date or percentage is printed beside any quarter. The contract was awarded in 2025 on a 41-month term; the date the construction commencement instruction was issued is not published, which is precisely why the filed October 2028 and the contractor’s 2029 can both be true statements about different things.
Density — why this page computes none
Keluasan tanah is NOT PRINTED on the filing and no developer source publishes a land area for this scheme, so density cannot be computed. Portal editorial asserts 3.44 acres with no provenance, which is suspiciously close to the 3.45 acres another portal assigns to the sibling Kingswoodz — two near-identical unsourced acreages, given to two developments of very different size (1,004 units against 1,558) on two different land titles. That is a reason to distrust both figures, not to pick one. The only acreage with a primary source is the main contractor’s 17.9 acres, and that is a holding shared across four schemes, so it gives neither a per-scheme nor a per-tower density. What can honestly be said, because every input is filed: 1,004 units across 87 storeys of residential tower works out at about 11.5 units per floor in Block A (494 ÷ 43) and about 11.6 in Block B (510 ÷ 44) — that is my arithmetic on filed figures, and it does not account for non-residential podium levels, which the filing does not break out.
Not published, therefore not on this page
Statutory: the APDL number and its validity; the land area; the car-park bay count; which Schedule — G or H — applies to each type’s sale and purchase agreement, and whether any parcel sits outside the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966; the date the construction commencement instruction was issued. The commercial component, and this is the open question I would most want answered: the main contractor’s scope covers “commercial units” and “commercial spaces”, so commercial parcels exist in this development — but no source states how many there are, whether they are for sale or retained by the developer, whether they sit inside or outside the filed 1,004 count, or what title they carry. The filed statutory block prints only the two residential blocks and gives no commercial line. That is a real Housing Development Act question, because retained commercial space in a podium affects the service-charge apportionment and the use of the common property, and because a non-Act parcel carries a different sale contract from an Act one. It is first on my gallery list. Building and units: unit count per layout type; type-to-block assignment; what distinguishes C1 from C2; which portion of the D2 dual key is the lockable unit, its area, and whether it has its own door off the common corridor; room-by-room lists; floor-to-ceiling height; building height in metres; lifts per block and the lift-to-unit ratio; stack orientation and which units face the sibling tower. Facilities and running cost: a reliable level number for the sky facilities; whether the Level 8 deck is shared between the towers or split; a developer-published service charge and sinking fund; whether a master-community charge applies across the four schemes on the 17.9-acre holding, and who maintains the shared roads, drainage, boundary and the “infrastructure works” in the contract scope after handover. Location: any distance at all from the developer; the real distance to Awan Besar LRT; whether the covered walkway exists and who maintains it. Legal and commercial: foreign-buyer eligibility per type; whether the sekatan kepentingan consent affects financing or resale and its lead time; vacant possession terms, defect liability period and the liquidated-damages rate; the managing agent or joint management body arrangement; the release schedule by block and type. Also worth a manual look: the developer’s own e-brochure exceeds the size limit for automated retrieval, so if it prints a statutory block it has not been compared field by field against the one above.
What this page does not publish, and why
This page carries no discount of any kind, no rebate, no nett price, no promotional package, no freebie or incentive, no Bumiputera discount percentage, no agency commission, no leaseback or guaranteed-rental rate and no yield or return-on-investment projection. Some of that information exists in material I hold as an agent and it is not mine to publish; the rest does not belong on a page whose whole purpose is that every number on it is traceable to a named public document. The filed brochure for this scheme does print a Diskaun Bumiputera field; the field’s existence is recorded here and its value is deliberately withheld. Separately, three independent publishers carry an opening “from” price below the filed statutory minimum of RM744,999, each with a different figure. A figure below the filed statutory minimum cannot be an open-market selling price as filed, so none of the three is published here; what is published is the discrepancy and the fact that three separate sources carry it. Ask me for the current price list and I will get it; it will come from the developer with a date on it.
What I will ask at the sales gallery, in this order
1. The commercial component — how many parcels, what title, for sale or retained, inside or outside the 1,004, and which sale contract applies to them. 2. The APDL certificate, its number and its validity period, photographed. 3. Which Schedule applies to the sale and purchase agreement for the type I am looking at. 4. The actual level of the sky facilities, given that the filing says 43 and 44 storeys. 5. Whether the Level 8 deck is shared between the two blocks. 6. The land area for this scheme, in writing, so density can be computed rather than asserted. 7. The unit count for my type, which block it sits in, and what distinguishes C1 from C2. 8. For D2, which portion is the lockable unit, its area, and whether it has its own entrance. 9. The service charge and sinking fund rate, and whether any master-community charge applies across the four schemes on this holding. 10. The car-park allocation for my type, and whether the charging-ready claim is the developer’s. 11. The defect liability period, the liquidated-damages rate and the vacant possession terms. 12. And for a foreign buyer: written confirmation of eligibility for the specific type, against the current Federal Territory threshold.
EXSIM Jalil Link Sdn Bhd — the licensed developer, and why the name on the portals is the wrong one
The licensed developer (Pemaju) as filed is EXSIM JALIL LINK SDN BHD, registration number 201401028642 (1104782-X). That is the company that would be the vendor on your sale and purchase agreement. The twelve-digit number is the Companies Act 2016 format and 1104782-X is the pre-2017 format; the filing prints both for the same company.
Two portals name the wrong company. PropertyGuru record 23581 and Metproperty both give “EXSIM Development Sdn Bhd”, which is the group holding and brand entity — the author of the group sustainability report — and is not the licensed developer here. This is the established EXSIM pattern: every project is licensed to a separate single-purpose company, never to EXSIM Development Sdn Bhd. Do not copy the portals on this. Portal editorial gets it right, and so does the project’s own terms page, which prints “EXSIM JALIL LINK SDN BHD” and “1104782-X” and matches the filing exactly. That is worth noting, because the sibling Kingswoodz microsite prints the licensee’s name and registration number both wrong — so where the two microsites disagree, this one is the accurate one.
The single-purpose-company pattern needs one qualification here. “One company per project” holds at group level, but at scheme level this one company holds four projects on a single 17.9-acre Bukit Jalil holding under one developer licence, per the main contractor via The Edge. The Kingswoodz is filing 30741-1 and The Queenswoodz is filing 30741-2 under that licence; 30741-3 returns 404, so the other two schemes on that land are licensed elsewhere or not yet filed. One consequence matters for a buyer: because the same developer licence number is printed on both filings, a reader who treats the licence number as a project identifier will conclude the two towers are one scheme. They are not.
And do not fold in the neighbours. The Vividz @ Bukit Jalil is licensed to EXSIM Bukit Jalil City Sdn Bhd (1368455-U / 202001012135) on an entirely different licence, 30357 — also in Bukit Jalil, also EXSIM-branded, a different licensee on a different licence. Other confirmed EXSIM single-purpose companies, for anyone cross-checking: Armada Istimewa Sdn Bhd (Hugoz), Lembaran Beruntung Sdn Bhd (Branniganz), EXSIM MX4 Sdn Bhd (the Kwasa Damansara projects), Mightyprop Sdn Bhd (the Dataran Sentral phases), Sunrise Charm Sdn Bhd (Hanaz) and EXSIM Avenue Sdn Bhd (Kyliez).
Registered office, as printed on the filing: D-35-01, Level 35, EXSIM Tower, Millerz Square @ Old Klang Road, Megan Legasi, No. 357, Jalan Kelang Lama, 58000 Kuala Lumpur. Sibling EXSIM single-purpose companies file Level 9 of the same tower; this entity uses Level 35. Both are genuine — do not assume one EXSIM address across projects. The sales gallery on the filing is at G-08, Ground Floor, Megan Legasi, No. 357, Jalan Kelang Lama, and its telephone number, 03-2779 2570, is the same number printed on the Kingswoodz filing: one shared sales gallery serves both schemes, which is another reason the two get confused with each other.
What the developer says about this project, in its own words. The corporate project page writes: “‘Queens’ speaks to timeless grace, quiet authority, and feminine refinement. ‘Woodz,’ with its earthy resonance, grounds that elegance in strength, resilience, and a deep connection to nature.” The microsite adds “The Queenswoodz emerges as a bold yet serene residential haven” and “The Feminine Sensuality to a Masculine Legacy”. That last line ties the scheme to the sibling Kingswoodz as branding — but no shared legal, title, management or facilities arrangement between the two exists, so do not let it imply one development. The one piece of project-specific marketing identity the developer does publish is a lunar theme: “lunar-themed landscaping”, a “star-gazing lawn” and the facility names Moonlight Sip A and B. Note that the star-gazing lawn appears nowhere in the developer’s own facilities list, which names Leisure Lawn, Green Terrace and Wellness Garden instead.
I do not quote the microsite’s opening paragraph, and neither should anyone else. It describes Kebun Teh in Johor Bahru and names The Asteriaz @ Kebun Teh — see the top of this page. The developer’s own statutory-adjacent prose, on its terms and disclaimer pages, is the part worth reading: “All plans layouts, designs, specifications and information contained herein are subject to change as required by the relevant authorities and / or the developer’s architect and cannot form part of an offer or contract.” That is the developer telling you, correctly, that the marketing material is not the contract.
Awards and green certification on this page are this project’s only. The Queenswoodz holds none of either. EXSIM has a long award record — FIABCI World and FIABCI-Malaysia wins for The Rainz @ Bukit Jalil, The Rosewoodz @ Bukit Jalil, Twin Arkz @ Bukit Jalil, Millerz Square, The Arcuz @ Kelana Jaya and D’Nuri Residences @ Desa Petaling, plus GreenRE certifications for The Rosewoodz (Silver, final), The Kingswoodz (Silver Provisional) and The Vividz (Silver Provisional) — and none of it belongs to this project. Three of those awarded schemes are in Bukit Jalil, which makes the borrowing easy and wrong. The group’s sukuk and structured-finance awards are awards to financing vehicles, not to buildings. Independent registry confirmation either way is currently unavailable: GreenRE’s public project directory returns “No projects found” and its project platform carries a temporarily-unavailable notice — which is exactly why the developer’s own project-by-project register, where this scheme does not appear, is the evidence that matters.
The Queenswoodz @ Bukit Jalil — the questions buyers actually ask
Is The Queenswoodz the second phase of The Kingswoodz?
No. They are two separately registered schemes that happen to share one developer licence. Seven filed fields match and nine differ. Here is every field, side by side, from the two filings themselves.
| Field, as filed | The Queenswoodz | The Kingswoodz | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIMS filing folder | 30741/30741-2 | 30741/30741-1 | DIFFER |
| Registered scheme name filed | The Queenswoodz @ Bukit Jalil | EXSIM | The Kingswoodz Residences | DIFFER |
| Licensed developer | EXSIM JALIL LINK SDN BHD 201401028642 (1104782-X) | EXSIM JALIL LINK SDN BHD 201401028642 (1104782-X) | MATCH |
| No. Lesen Pemaju | 30741/04-2029/0083(N) | 30741/04-2029/0083(N) | MATCH |
| Tempoh sah lesen | 19/04/2024 – 18/04/2029 | 19/04/2024 – 18/04/2029 | MATCH |
| APDL (No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan) | NOT PRINTED — field rendered XXXX | NOT PRINTED — field rendered XXXX | both absent |
| No. Pelan Rujukan | DBKL.JKB.BPS3 OSC 2025 2271 (10) | DBKL.JKB.BP S3 OSC 2024 0878 (17) | DIFFER |
| Approving authority | Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur | Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur | MATCH |
| Bebanan (chargee) | United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd | United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd | MATCH |
| Jumlah unit | 1,004 in 2 blocks (494 / 510) | 1,558 in 3 blocks (460 / 506 / 592) | DIFFER |
| Bilangan tingkat | 43 / 44 | 39 / 38 / 39 | DIFFER |
| Tarikh dijangka siap | Oct 2028 | June 2027 | DIFFER — 16 months apart |
| Pegangan tanah | Pajakan 99 tahun to 04/03/2123 | Pajakan 99 tahun to 04/03/2123 | MATCH |
| Jenis pembangunan | PANGSAPURI SERVIS | PANGSAPURI SERVIS | MATCH |
| Land title (contractor) | PT 50270, Jalan Jalil Perkasa 1 | Lot 38628, Jalan Jalil Perkasa 1 | DIFFER |
| Statutory selling-price range | RM744,999 – RM1,278,539 | RM485,875 – RM881,820 | DIFFER — no overlap at the bottom |
| Main contract sum | Binastra Builders, RM405 million | Binastra, RM369.9 million | DIFFER |
The two filings are also sequential rather than parallel: Kingswoodz’s building plan is a 2024 DBKL reference and this one’s is a 2025 reference, and the contract awards are a year apart. Portal editorial calls this scheme “the second phase following the successful Kingswoodz project”, which is not supportable as a statutory statement — and in any case this is the fourth contract the same main contractor has taken on that 17.9-acre holding, not the second of two. Where the pair differs it differs by a lot: 554 units, five storeys, sixteen months, and a statutory price floor RM259,124 apart. Do not reconcile them by averaging.
Why does the official Queenswoodz website talk about Johor Bahru?
Because uncorrected template copy from a different EXSIM project was left on it. The concept page of thequeenswoodz.com.my opens “Nestled in the serene Kebun Teh neighbourhsod, Johor Bahru, this new development offers a harmonious blend of modern design and timeless beauty” — the misspelling is in the source — and later says “Experience the perfect balance of urban living and natural serenity at The Asteriaz @ Kebun Teh.” The Asteriaz @ Kebun Teh is a different EXSIM development in Johor Bahru, about 300 km away, and I carry its page on this site. Nothing on that concept page about Kebun Teh, Johor Bahru or Asteriaz has anything to do with this development. It is systemic rather than a one-off: the sibling Kingswoodz has the same class of defect inside its filed government brochure, whose narrative page describes a different EXSIM tower in Bukit Bintang. Treat all EXSIM narrative and concept copy in this family as template-reused, and read the filed schedule instead.
How many storeys is The Queenswoodz, and are there really sky facilities on Level 50?
Block A is filed at 43 storeys and Block B at 44, and the main contractor’s own announcement independently says the same: Block A 43 storeys and 494 units, Block B 44 storeys and 510 units. Two sources agree exactly. So no, there cannot be a Level 50. The developer’s own facilities graphic nonetheless labels the sky facilities “Level 50, Tower A” and “Level 50, Tower B”; PropertyGuru 23581 says 50 storeys; portal editorial says “approximately 50-51 storeys each”; and Metproperty says a flat 44, dropping Block A’s 43 altogether. Either the artwork’s numbering is wrong or the building is taller than both the filing and the builder say. This page publishes the sky facilities by name — Sky BBQ A and B, Moonlight Sip A and B — and publishes no level number for them.
Is the advertising and sale permit (APDL) current?
Nobody can tell you from public records. On the filed brochure the No. Permit Iklan dan Jualan field and its validity period are both rendered as the literal placeholder XXXX, and no other source publishes an APDL number or validity for this scheme. The developer licence 30741/04-2029/0083(N) is valid 19 April 2024 to 18 April 2029 and is current — but a developer licence is not an advertising permit, and the 2029 date must never be presented to you as APDL validity. It has to come from the sales gallery, and it is first on my list of things to photograph. The sibling Kingswoodz filing has the identical blank field.
How many units are there, and how are they split between the two blocks?
1,004 units, filed as Block A with 494 units over 43 storeys and Block B with 510 units over 44 storeys, both as PANGSAPURI SUITE. The main contractor confirms both figures independently. PropertyGuru 23581 says 1,002, a two-unit discrepancy with no explanation. The unit count per layout type, and which types sit in Block A rather than Block B, are not published by anyone. The two blocks’ filed statutory price bands are near-identical, which is consistent with the same type mix in both towers, but no source says so.
What is the price of a unit at The Queenswoodz?
The only selling prices this page publishes are the filed statutory Harga Jualan Minima / Maksima: RM744,999 to RM1,278,539 across the scheme (Block A RM747,574 to RM1,278,539, Block B RM744,999 to RM1,278,539). That is a public filed particular, not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer, and it does not tell you the price of any particular unit. Three independent publishers carry an opening “from” price below the filed statutory minimum, each with a different figure. None of those three figures appears on this page, because a figure below the filed minimum cannot be an open-market selling price as filed. One portal also publishes a price-per-square-foot ceiling below what the filed prices and built-ups themselves imply — RM1,278,539 over 1,410 sq ft is about RM907 per sq ft, and RM744,999 over 807 sq ft is about RM923 — so that portal figure is unsupported too. Ask me for the current price list; it will come from the developer with a date on it.
What layouts are available, and is the dual key real?
Eight types are filed: A1 and A2 at 807 sq ft (2+1 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms), B1 and B2 at 936 sq ft (3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms), C1 and C2 at 1,206 sq ft (3+1 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms) and D1 and D2 at 1,410 sq ft. The A and B pairs are the developer’s own (Balkoni) and (Tanpa Balkoni) variants — with and without a balcony at the same built-up. Yes, the dual key is real and the developer’s own filed material supports it: the filing labels the type “D2 (Dual Key)” itself and gives it 3+1 bedrooms / 3 bathrooms against D1’s 4 bedrooms / 3 bathrooms at the identical 1,410 sq ft, which is exactly what splitting off a self-contained portion does to a room count. There is no studio type and no studio-office type at all, and the smallest unit is 807 sq ft — which is why PropertyGuru’s 484 sq ft “1-Bedroom” cannot be a unit in this building.
Are all the units residential, and is the whole development under the Housing Development Act?
On the published evidence all 1,004 units in the two blocks are residential serviced apartments. The filed Jenis Pembangunan is PANGSAPURI SERVIS and nothing else; both blocks are filed as PANGSAPURI SUITE; and the filed layout schedule lists only bedroom layouts, with no studio and no studio-office type — which matters, because EXSIM’s non-Housing-Development-Act office-suite towers are built around 344 to 678 sq ft studio-office types and this scheme has none. But there is a separate commercial component and its status is not published. The main contractor’s scope covers “commercial units” and “commercial spaces” alongside the two residential blocks and the podium parking. No source states how many there are, whether they are for sale or retained by the developer, whether they sit inside or outside the filed 1,004 count, or what title they carry, and the filed statutory block gives no commercial line at all. That is a real question to ask, because retained commercial space in a podium affects the service-charge apportionment and the use of the common property, and a parcel outside the Act carries a different sale contract. It is first on my gallery list.
When will it be completed?
The filed tarikh dijangka siap is October 2028. The main contractor, who is building it on a 41-month term, expects completion in 2029. Both figures are published, the filed date governs, and the contractor’s is the more conservative one a buyer should hear alongside it. PropertyGuru says 2028, Metproperty says 2029, portal editorial says 2029 and one agent site says “before 2029”. The date the construction commencement instruction was issued is not published anywhere, which is why the 41-month term cannot be converted into a real completion date and why both the filed October 2028 and the contractor’s 2029 can stand.
How far is Awan Besar LRT station, and Pavilion Bukit Jalil?
The developer publishes no distance to either, in metres or in minutes, and does not name the station. Its location page carries a map graphic and no figure in text at all. Third parties disagree by nearly a factor of two on the station: “500 m via covered walkway” per an IQI Realty marketing site, “approximately 450 to 650 m” per portal editorial, and “940 m, 11 minutes” per PropertyGuru 23581. For Pavilion Bukit Jalil the same agent says an 8-minute walk while portal editorial says approximately 600 to 750 m. I publish none of these as fact and I have estimated nothing. 940 m against 500 m is the difference between a genuine walk-to-transit claim and a marketing one, and the only figure paired with its own walking time is the 940 m one, which is at least internally consistent. A portal headline calling Pavilion “next door” is not supportable from any source.
What is the density, and how big is the site?
Neither can be published. Keluasan tanah is NOT PRINTED on the filing and no developer source gives a land area for this scheme, so density cannot be computed. Portal editorial asserts 3.44 acres with no provenance, which is near-identical to the 3.45 acres another portal assigns to the sibling Kingswoodz — two unsourced acreages, almost the same, for two developments of very different size on two different land titles. That is a reason to distrust both. The only acreage with a primary source is the main contractor’s 17.9 acres, and that is a holding shared across four schemes, so dividing 1,004 by it would credit this scheme with land belonging to three others. What can honestly be said: 1,004 units over 87 storeys of residential tower is about 11.5 units per floor in Block A and about 11.6 in Block B — my arithmetic on filed figures, and it does not account for the non-residential podium levels the filing does not break out.
Can a foreign buyer purchase at The Queenswoodz?
The property is in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, where the published minimum purchase price for a foreign buyer has been RM1,000,000, with Economic Planning Unit consent where it applies. The filed statutory band here is RM744,999 to RM1,278,539, which straddles that threshold, so eligibility may differ type by type — and because the filing does not publish a price per type, no public source lets you work out which types clear it. No source addresses foreign eligibility for this scheme at all. This must be confirmed against the current Federal Territory guideline and in writing from the developer before a foreign buyer commits. For contrast, the sibling Kingswoodz’s filed maximum of RM881,820 sits entirely below that threshold. Selangor, for comparison, requires RM2,000,000 in Zone 1 and Zone 2 and applies it to strata and gated landed strata only, and RM1,000,000 in Zone 3, which is Hulu Selangor and Sabak Bernam.
Who is the developer, and is it EXSIM Development Sdn Bhd?
No. The licensed developer as filed is EXSIM JALIL LINK SDN BHD, 201401028642 (1104782-X), a single-purpose company, and that is the entity that would be the vendor on your sale and purchase agreement. PropertyGuru 23581 and Metproperty both name “EXSIM Development Sdn Bhd”, which is the group holding and brand entity and is not the licensed developer here. Portal editorial gets it right, and so does the project’s own terms page, which matches the filing exactly — unlike the sibling Kingswoodz microsite, which prints the licensee’s name and registration number both wrong. Note that this one company holds four projects on a single 17.9-acre Bukit Jalil holding under one developer licence, so “one company per project” needs that qualification here.
Is The Queenswoodz green-certified?
No — it holds no green certification of any kind, and it is not described as targeting one either. It appears nowhere on EXSIM’s own certifications register, which is project-by-project and lists twelve other EXSIM projects, including the sibling Kingswoodz (Silver Provisional, 8 November 2024) and The Rosewoodz @ Bukit Jalil (Silver, final). So this is an absence from the developer’s own records, not merely an absence of evidence. No GreenRE logo appears on the Queenswoodz microsite — the sibling microsite does display a bare logo with no rating and no provisional qualifier, which is its own trap — and no portal claims a certification for this scheme. No Green Building Index entry exists either; EXSIM certifies with GreenRE. Independent registry confirmation is unavailable in both directions at the moment: GreenRE’s public project directory returns “No projects found” and its project platform is temporarily unavailable, which is exactly why the developer’s own register is the evidence that counts.
Has The Queenswoodz won any awards?
No. It appears nowhere on EXSIM’s own recognitions page, which runs from 2013 to 2026. For a project contracted in 2025 and completing in 2028 that is expected. Be careful with the Bukit Jalil ones in particular, because they share the locality name: the FIABCI World Prix d’Excellence and FIABCI-Malaysia wins belong to The Rainz @ Bukit Jalil, The Rosewoodz @ Bukit Jalil and Twin Arkz @ Bukit Jalil, not to this project. The group’s long run of sukuk and structured-finance awards are awards to financing vehicles, not to buildings.
What tenure is the land, and what does the restriction in interest mean for me?
The filing gives pajakan 99 tahun sehingga 04/03/2123 — a 99-year lease expiring 4 March 2123, about 96 years unexpired. Both portals print a bare “Leasehold” with no expiry date, which is incomplete rather than wrong. The filing also prints a sekatan kepentingan: the land may not be transferred, leased, charged or mortgaged without the consent of the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur Land Executive Committee. Whether that consent affects a purchaser’s financing or a later resale, and what lead time it adds, is not addressed by any source — so ask, and get the answer in writing. The chargee on the land is United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd.
How many car-park bays come with a unit?
Not published, by anyone. On the filing the label Bil Unit Tempat Letak Kereta is printed and its value is left blank. No source publishes a bay count, a bays-per-unit allocation by type, which podium levels are parking, visitor bays or motorcycle bays. One agent site describes the car parks as “EV-ready”; that is a single agent claim with no developer source, and since the filing carries no car-park line at all there is nothing public to check it against.
Why does the website printed in the filed advertisement not work?
Because EXSIM appears to have swapped the two domains between its own two filings. The contact block of the filed Queenswoodz brochure gives queenswoodz.com.my, which returns 404, while the live developer microsite is thequeenswoodz.com.my. The Kingswoodz filing has the mirror-image defect: it prints thekingswoodz.com.my, which does not resolve, while that project’s live site is kingswoodz.com. A buyer following the statutory advertisement for either scheme reaches nothing.
What facilities does it have, and are they shared with The Kingswoodz?
The developer publishes a Level 8 facilities deck — Leisure Pool, Shallow Splash, Queen’s Court, Queen’s Pavilion, Queen’s Hall, Wellness Garden, Jacuzzi Retreat, Sun Deck, Biopond, Leisure Lawn, Green Terrace, Grace Foot Garden, Regal Hall, Inspired Lounge, Kid’s Wonderland and Outdoor Wellness — a Level 9 gym called Momentum Studio, a ground-level Grand Arrival and drop-off with two lounges, and per-tower sky facilities (Sky BBQ A and B, Moonlight Sip A and B) whose level number is not publishable. They are not shared with The Kingswoodz, and the evidence is clear: separate land titles, separate DBKL building plans a year apart, and each scheme publishing its own facility set under its own naming system — Queen’s Court and Queen’s Pavilion here against King’s Court and King’s Lounge there, with no facility name shared. Each will have its own management corporation and its own maintenance account, and the two completions are sixteen months apart. Whether the Level 8 deck is shared between this scheme’s own two towers, however, is not published. Note that portal editorial’s “infinity pool”, “reading room” and “co-working spaces” appear in no developer source for this project.
What is the service charge?
The developer publishes no service charge and no sinking-fund rate, and neither does the filing. One agent site publishes a figure of RM0.42 per square foot including sinking fund; that is a single agent claim, not confirmed by the developer, and it is silent on the question that matters more here — whether a master-community charge sits on top of it. This is one of four EXSIM Jalil Link schemes on one 17.9-acre holding, and the contract scope for this one explicitly includes “infrastructure works”. No source publishes a master-community agreement, a shared-infrastructure deed, or who maintains the shared roads, drainage, boundary and security across the four schemes after handover. Ask.
Want the documents rather than the brochure?
I will go to the gallery and ask for the developer’s licence, the APDL certificate with its number and validity, the filed advertisement particulars and the current price list, photograph what they can show, and get the twelve answers listed in the register section above in writing — starting with the commercial component and the real level of the sky facilities. On a project where the official microsite describes another state and the official facilities graphic describes a storey that does not exist, that errand is the whole value of having an agent.
All information on this page is compiled from the sources named beside each figure and is provided for general information only. It is not a price list, a quotation, an offer or an invitation to treat. The only selling prices on this page are the statutory Harga Jualan Minima / Maksima from the legally filed advertisement particulars (RM744,999 to RM1,278,539) and the two blocks’ filed bands, together with the published foreign-purchase thresholds for the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur (RM1,000,000) and Selangor (RM2,000,000 in Zones 1 and 2, RM1,000,000 in Zone 3); all of those are public filed or published figures and none of them is a quotation for any unit. Renders are artists’ impressions, subject to change and to the approval of the relevant authorities. Where the developer’s own two documents disagree, both are shown above and neither is averaged away. Verify every figure against the sale and purchase agreement and the documents on display at the sales gallery before you commit.
Louis Koh
Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency
I work Kuala Lumpur and Selangor new launches and I publish the filed statutory particulars rather than the brochure copy. On this project the two happen to be unusually far apart: the developer’s own official microsite opens by describing a development in another state, and its own facilities graphic puts the sky facilities on a storey the filing says does not exist. Neither of those is a reason not to buy here — the filed schedule is clean and detailed, and the dual-key claim is one of the few in this family that the filing actually supports. They are reasons to read the filing. If a figure on this page matters to your decision, ask me for the document it came from. Where no document exists, I will tell you that too.
Published 5 October 2026 · Last verified 5 October 2026 · Statutory particulars from the KPKT HIMS filed advertisement brochure, filing 30741-2. The APDL field on that filing is blank, so the advertising permit’s currency cannot be assessed; the developer licence validity to 18 April 2029 is not an APDL validity. Land area is not printed, so no density figure appears here. Marketing information, not an offer.
Ask a specific question
If you would rather not use WhatsApp, use this. I answer them myself. Only your name and one contact method are required.
Developer: EXSIM Group (19 developments on this site)
Where it is: Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur (KL)