The Vertical Office Suites (Vertical Business Suites Tower A & B), Kampung Kerinchi (“Bangsar South”), Kuala Lumpur — a STRATIFIED OFFICE PAIR of 35 and 32 storeys with NO KPKT REGISTRATION and NO DEVELOPER LICENCE EVER ISSUED for it — so no Jadual G, no Jadual H, no statutory liquidated damages, no section 7A housing development account, no filed completion date, no KPKT register entry to check and no Tribunal — while the Strata Titles Act 1985 and the Strata Management Act 2013 DO apply; TENURE IS CONTRADICTED 3 : 1 AND IQI’S OWN PAGE IS THE OUTLIER; built-up published from 735 sq ft with no publishable ceiling; NO PRICE PUBLISHED AT ALL; licensee of record SUNNY UPTOWN SDN. BHD. 10697 holds FOUR registrations and not one of them is this building; Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur

Why this page exists, and what it is useful for

A brochure for this building would tell you it is a stratified office tower in Bangsar South. That is true and it is not the part that can cost you money. These six cards are the parts that can.

What is published about the suites — and the five things that are not

There is no filed advertisement for this building, so there is no statutory type schedule, no filed area table and no filed price band to reproduce. What follows is what the published surfaces carry, each labelled, plus the absences named as absences. No layout drawing is published by anybody, so none appears below.

Sources for this section: IQI’s own project page, PropertyGuru, StarProperty, EdgeProp and a rental-platform building guide, read 21 October 2026, together with UOA Limited’s audited Annual Report 2015. None of them is a statutory filing, and this page does not present any of them as one. Marketing information, not an offer.

Why there are no renders on this page

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

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

Kampung Kerinchi, Kuala Lumpur — and why “Bangsar South” is a marketing name

The place is Kampung Kerinchi. “Bangsar South” is the developer’s name for it. That is not a quibble: it is the difference between a gazetted locality and a brand, and it can be shown from filed text rather than asserted. The postcode is 59200 on three surfaces with no disagreement, and the planning authority is DBKL.

What is on a register, and what is not — for The Vertical Office Suites

On a licensed housing development this table is the statutory particulars block. Here it is a table of absences, and each cell names what was checked and on what authority. Read the empty cells carefully: on this product NONE is usually the correct LEGAL answer rather than a missing document — but CANNOT BE ASSESSED and INCONCLUSIVE are different things again, and where they apply the table says so instead of implying a clean result.

Scroll the table sideways. Every cell is a statement about a REGISTER, a FILING or a PUBLISHED SOURCE — not about the quality of the building — and on this project that distinction is the page’s whole value. Read 21 October 2026.

Sources: the KPKT TEDUH register of licensed developers and registered projects (licensee 10697 and the full registration walk 10697-1 to 10697-5, with a positive control run first); UOA Limited’s audited Annual Report 2015 as lodged with the Singapore Exchange; all four GreenRE tiers; the Green Building Index directory (unreachable); the Ministry of Economy’s Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah effective 13 July 2022 and the National Land Code (Revised 2020) s. 433B; IQI’s own project page; PropertyGuru; StarProperty; EdgeProp; a rental-platform building guide; and the developer group’s own property site, township site and media indexes. All read 21 October 2026. Marketing information, not an offer.

1. Why there is no registration — stated as law, not as a gap

A developer licence and an advertising and sales permit are required under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, and that Act reaches “housing accommodation”. An office suite with no living accommodation is not housing accommodation, so no registration, no licence and no permit CAN exist for this building. Their absence is the correct legal position and not a failure by anybody — and that is a different statement from “we could not find one”. THE CONSEQUENCES, SPELLED OUT, BECAUSE THEY ARE WHAT A BUYER IS ACTUALLY TRADING AWAY. No prescribed Jadual G and no prescribed Jadual H, so the sale contract is the vendor’s own and the only protection in it is what your solicitor negotiates into it. No statutory liquidated damages for late delivery — academic on a building completed years ago, but it also means nothing was ever owed on the original delivery either. No section 7A housing development account, so progress payments were never ring-fenced by statute. No filed completion date, which is the direct reason the completion year on this page has four answers and nothing can arbitrate between them. No pindaanTempohSerahKosong — the approved-extension field cannot exist, because the field only exists on a registration; it is inapplicable rather than blank. No KPKT register entry, so a buyer, a solicitor or a bank searching the ministry register for “Vertical” finds nothing. And no Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims, because the Tribunal hears homebuyers under that Act. AND THE OTHER HALF OF THE SENTENCE, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES THIS A SALEABLE ASSET RATHER THAN A WARNING: the Strata Titles Act 1985 and the Strata Management Act 2013 DO apply. This is a strata parcel, established from an audited annual report rather than from a brochure. So there is a strata title, a management corporation, a strata roll, a maintenance account and the Strata Management Tribunal for management disputes. Ordinary contract law and ordinary conveyancing law do the rest. A reader who takes only one thing from this page should take this: it is a different regime, not an absent one, and the questions that matter here are strata questions and title questions rather than housing-register questions.

2. The licence that exists, the four registrations on it, and the single sharpest sentence on this page

THE SHARPEST WAY TO PUT THE WHOLE REGISTER POSITION: the licensee of record files its business address INSIDE THIS VERY BUILDING COMPLEX, holds a CURRENT licence, and holds FOUR registrations — none of which is this building. Licensee: SUNNY UPTOWN SDN. BHD.. KPKT developer code: 10697. Licence: 10697/12-2028/1464(A), valid 16/12/2023 to 15/12/2028 — current and active as at 21 October 2026. jumlahProjek: 4. Registered office (alamatDaftar): No.9, Jalan Indah 16, Taman Cheras Indah, 56100 Kuala Lumpur. Business address (alamatPerniagaan), quoted verbatim from the filed government field: Uoa Corporate Tower, Lobby A Avenue 10, The Vertical, Bangsar South City, No. 8, Jalan Kerinchi 59200 Kuala Lumpur. Offence flags: projek_sakit_count: 0, projek_terbengkalai_count: 0, with no offence field on the record. E-mail domain on the filed record is the developer group’s own. THE REGISTRATION WALK, ONE ROW PER REGISTRATION, AND IT CLOSES CLEANLY. 10697-1 “Bangsar South” — Rumah Pangsa/Kondo on two rows, 470 units (180 + 290), 27 and 25 storeys, Jadual H, CCC 03/08/2010. Residential. NOT this building — and note that the registration is literally named after the locality brand, which is its own trap. 10697-2 “LOT 58191 & LOT 58192” — Pangsapuri Servis, 720 units, 34 storeys, Jadual H, CCC 27/09/2013. ⚠ THIS IS THE SHARPEST REGISTER DECOY ON THE WHOLE JOB and it sits on this very licence: a 2013 completion and a 34-storey height standing right beside this office pair’s claimed 2013 completion and its 32 and 35 storeys. IT IS A SERVICED-APARTMENT BLOCK ON Jadual H. IT IS NOT THEM. 10697-3 “Residensi Laman Permai” (the Goodwood Residence) — Pangsapuri Suite, 678 units, 40 storeys, Jadual H, CCC 06/04/2022. Residential. NOT this building, and it has its own page on this site. 10697-4 “Residensi Laurel, Bangsar Selatan” (Laurel Residence) — 1,260 units, 42 storeys, Jadual H. Residential. NOT this building, and it has its own page. 10697-5 — CLIENT_ERROR. THE WALK CLOSES HERE. AND IT RECONCILES: four registrations found, the fifth returns an error, and the licensee record’s own jumlahProjek field says 4. Four equals four, so nothing is hiding past the end of the walk. THE RESULT: NOT ONE OF THE FOUR IS AN OFFICE. Every component row is Rumah Pangsa/Kondo, Pangsapuri Servis or Pangsapuri Suite, and every one is on Jadual H. There is no pejabat, no suite pejabat and no bangunan pejabat row anywhere on this licence. A positive control was run on the register endpoint FIRST and it passed, so every zero above is a real zero rather than a broken query. And the register was never searched by the group brand alone, because that search is known to return nothing on this register for this group — the licensee was reached from an inherited licensee ledger and then confirmed by direct query.

3. ⚠ The two other office towers — THE ONE LABELLED CROSS-REFERENCE ON THIS PAGE

This is the only place on this page where the other pair is named, and it is here for one reason only: so that a reader who has seen a “Vertical” listing or a “Vertical” photograph can work out which building it was. The complex contains two further office towers: UOA Corporate Tower, reported at 38 storeys and held within a listed real estate investment trust, and Vertical Corporate Tower B, reported at 40 storeys. NEITHER IS FOR SALE. NEITHER IS ON THIS PAGE’S SUBJECT. A building a client cannot buy does not get a project page on this site — it gets this sentence. WHAT MUST NOT CROSS FROM THEM, NAMED SO IT CANNOT DRIFT BACK IN: not a height, not a completion year, not a floor plate, not a lettable area, not a green certificate, and absolutely not a rent, an occupancy figure or any investment-trust disclosure. The green point is the live one: a third-party building guide states that both of those towers hold a Green Building Index certification. THAT CERTIFICATION BELONGS TO THEM AND SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE BUSINESS SUITES, AND IT IS NOT REPEATED ANYWHERE ELSE ON THIS PAGE. The investment-trust point is the dangerous one, and it is worth being explicit about why. An office asset held inside a listed trust has its rents, its net property income, its occupancy and its reversion profile published every quarter as a matter of regulatory obligation. That material is one short step from a figure this site may never publish, and it describes a SIBLING rather than the subject. So no trust disclosure of any kind appears on this page — not as colour, not as context, and not as a comparison. Everything else in the complex — the retail podium, the other township components, the hotels, the serviced apartments and the residential towers — gets nothing at all here: not a cross-reference, not a distance, not an image.

4. ⚠ Tenure — contradicted three to one, with IQI as the outlier, and printed unresolved

This is the single most useful paragraph on this page, and the honest reason a reader should want it. LEASEHOLD on PropertyGuru. LEASEHOLD on StarProperty. LEASEHOLD on EdgeProp. FREEHOLD on IQI’s own project page for this very project. The developer’s own audited annual report discloses no tenure at all. And the only lease figure anywhere is one agent listing reading “Leasehold 98 yr” — an agent listing, not a filing, with no commencement date and no expiry date attached to it, which makes it unusable even if it is right. That is three independent surfaces against one, and the one is Louis’s own company. This page prints the contradiction unadjudicated. On the weight of sources the answer favours leasehold. It is closed by exactly one thing: a strata title for a unit, or a land search on the master title at the Kuala Lumpur Land Office. Until one of those has been seen, the right working assumption on any non-HDA commercial title is that TENURE IS UNSETTLED — because there is no filed advertisement, no register field and no statutory contract in which a tenure statement could have been made under penalty. WHY IT MATTERS IN MONEY RATHER THAN IN PRINCIPLE. If the land is leasehold, the figure that prices the asset is the unexpired term rather than the original term; a bank’s margin of advance and tenor move with it; and a transfer of leasehold land normally requires the consent of the land authority as well. If the land is freehold, none of that applies. Those are different assets with different financing, and no listing on any surface tells you which one you are being offered. Ask for the title before you ask for the price.

5. The contradictions this page prints rather than resolves

Five, and they are printed because a page that quietly picks one answer teaches a reader nothing. ONE — COMPLETION, IN FOUR ANSWERS, WITH NOTHING FILED TO ARBITRATE. 2013 on three third-party surfaces for Tower A and Tower B; Q3 2015 in the audited annual report; 29 June 2015 on IQI’s own page; and “commenced sales in 2015” in the same audited report’s chairman’s statement. There is no filed completion date for this building, and that is precisely why the disagreement cannot be settled from a document — the absence of the filing and the existence of the contradiction are the same fact. The CCC for each tower would close it. TWO — THE AUDITED REPORT CONTRADICTS ITSELF, INSIDE ONE DOCUMENT. It calls this component “The Vertical Office Suites (commercial)” in one place and “The Vertical Corporate Towers” in another. And its own logic strains: if “the first stratified office project completed in Bangsar South” completed in Q3 2015, then the Business Suites’ widely published 2013 completion would have come first. Printed unadjudicated — and it is the root of the merged-record problem, because a document that uses two names for two different things is exactly what a portal flattens into one record. THREE — THE BUILT-UP SPREAD, ABOUT THIRTEEN TIMES FROM END TO END. 1,380 sq ft (PropertyGuru, StarProperty) against 2,659 sq ft (a building guide) against fourteen thousand (IQI) against eighteen thousand six hundred (EdgeProp). The 735 sq ft floor is agreed by four surfaces and is the only area figure this page publishes. The ceiling is the merged-record artefact and is not resolvable from anything published. FOUR — THE TOWER COUNT. Two (this component, on three surfaces), four (the whole Vertical), one (a single-building portal record), and “six office blocks and one hotel tower” (for the wider development). All four are probably true of different scopes, which is why this page states its scope in its first line. FIVE — WHO THE DEVELOPER IS, AS PRINTED. “UOA Group” on three portals; “UOA Development Bhd” in the audited report, matching the township website’s own copyright line UOA DEVELOPMENT BHD (654023-V); a fourth spelling on a rental platform that does not match any listed entity and is not reproduced here; and SUNNY UPTOWN SDN. BHD. on the register, which does not hold this building. Four names, and the one with legal force on this building is none of them, because no licence was issued for it.

6. The building-plan approval reference — the FORM is established, the INSTANCE does not exist

In Kuala Lumpur the current building-plan approval reference takes the form BP S<n> OSC <YYYY> <NNNN>, where S<n> is a zone index rather than a constant, and for this quadrant of the city the zone index is S1. That form and that zone are not inferred: this series has quoted S1 instances eight times from its own sheets, across Brickfields, Bangsar South and Kampung Kerinchi, Bangsar proper, Pantai Dalam, Bukit Kerinchi, KL Eco City, Kuchai Lama and Old Klang Road. That is a locality band, and it is NOT evidence that any two of those places are the same place. AND THERE IS NO INSTANCE FOR THIS BUILDING, STRUCTURALLY RATHER THAN BY OVERSIGHT. In Kuala Lumpur that reference is normally recovered from inside the KPKT statutory block — and this building has no statutory block. So the usual Kuala Lumpur location proof is unavailable here BY CONSTRUCTION, and no DBKL file number is invented to fill the hole. A SECOND, HONEST CAVEAT THAT MOST PAGES WOULD LEAVE OUT. This building’s plan approval would date to roughly 2009 to 2011. The BP S<n> OSC form is a One-Stop-Centre-era reference, and it is NOT established that it was in use at that date. So the form above is stated as the CURRENT Kuala Lumpur form and is deliberately not retrojected onto a 2009-to-2011 approval. The documents that would close it: the DBKL building-plan approval letter, or any filed advertisement for the parcel — and the second of those does not exist for a non-HDA office.

7. Foreign buyers — the figure, why it is only half an answer, and the SECOND consent nobody publishes

Jurisdiction: the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. The published floor for a foreign acquisition is RM1,000,000 per unit. Authority: the Ministry of Economy’s Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah, effective 13 July 2022; consent is processed through the Economic Planning Unit rather than a state authority, because Kuala Lumpur is a federal territory; and the statutory hook is the National Land Code (Revised 2020), section 433B. IQI’s own foreign-buyer guide corroborates the figure for Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan. THE EXPIRED WINDOW, NAMED AS EXPIRED SO IT CANNOT BE QUOTED AS CURRENT. Circular 2/2020’s RM1,500,000 window ran from 1 January to 31 December 2020 and HAS EXPIRED. And it is doubly inapplicable here: it was a SELANGOR circular, and this building is in the Federal Territory. It must never be published as the current floor on this or any page. THE GEOGRAPHIC LEG IS ROBUST. There is no Federal Territory / Selangor ambiguity at Kampung Kerinchi, so the part of the answer that depends on where the building is cannot be wrong — which is more than can be said for a locality that straddles a state boundary. ⚠ AND NOW THE PART THAT MUST BE SAID IN THE SAME BREATH, OR THE FIGURE MISLEADS. EVERY SOURCE BEHIND THE RM1,000,000 FLOOR IS A RESIDENTIAL ACQUISITION INSTRUMENT. ITS APPLICATION TO A COMMERCIAL STRATA OFFICE TITLE IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY ANY SOURCE REACHED. So RM1,000,000 must not be read as “the rule” for this asset. The honest position is that the figure is the verified residential floor for this territory, that this is a commercial title, and that whether the residential floor reaches it is undetermined. Who determines it: the Economic Planning Unit or the Ministry of Economy in writing, or a Malaysian conveyancing solicitor’s written opinion. AND THE SECOND CONSENT, WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM THE PRICE FLOOR AND WHICH BINDS MALAYSIAN BUYERS TOO. If the title is leasehold — and the weight of sources says it is — a transfer of leasehold land normally also requires the consent of the land authority, in the Federal Territory the Pesuruhjaya Tanah Persekutuan and the land office, independently of any foreign-buyer rule. NOBODY PUBLISHES THE POSITION. No source reached states the consent position, the restriction in interest or the land category for this parcel. The page’s line is therefore the same for a foreign buyer and a local one: have a Malaysian conveyancing solicitor confirm BOTH the acquisition-consent position AND the transfer-consent position in writing before you pay any booking fee.

8. Green certification — one clean negative, three inconclusives, and a claim that belongs to a neighbour

The distinctions in this paragraph are the whole point of it, because “we found nothing” and “nothing exists” are different statements and only one of them is available here. GREENRE PLATINUM: A CLEAN NEGATIVE, AND AN UNUSUALLY MEANINGFUL ONE. The Platinum register was read WHOLE — 95 rows, running from 06/04/2015 to 18/03/2026, followed directly by the page footer, with NO TRUNCATION. No row for this building, this township, this developer group, this locality or the licensee of record. And here is why that is stronger than the usual formula: the tier’s own oldest entry predates this building’s claimed completion, so the window actually COVERS the relevant date. A negative over a window that contains the event is evidence; a negative over a window that starts afterwards is not. GREENRE GOLD, SILVER AND BRONZE: INCONCLUSIVE, AND WRITTEN AS INCONCLUSIVE. All three truncate at their oldest end years AFTER this building was completed — Bronze at 2024, Gold at 2024 and Silver at 2023, with even the deeper list below Silver reaching back only to 2022. A 2013-to-2015 entry CANNOT appear in any of them. So their silence is structural and carries no information, and this page does not dress it up as a negative. GREEN BUILDING INDEX: INCONCLUSIVE. The directory returned a client error, as it has throughout this series. That is an unreachable register, not an absent certificate. ⚠ AND THE LIVE CLAIM BELONGS TO A REFUSED NEIGHBOUR. A third-party building guide states that the two corporate towers in this complex hold Green Building Index certification. Those are the towers that are not for sale. A certificate on them says NOTHING about these two towers, and it is not borrowed onto this page. AND A BARE PHRASE IS NOT A RATING. StarProperty carries an unsourced, undated “Green Building status” line for this component naming no scheme, no tool and no rating. It is not published here as certification and it must not be read as one. Nothing on this page says “certified”. For an office the tool code to look for would be a non-residential one rather than a residential one — the Platinum table itself shows office towers carrying the non-residential codes — which is a further reason a residential-register sweep would prove nothing here either way. BCA Green Mark and LEED were NOT checked, and that is recorded as not done rather than as a negative. No award of any kind is claimed on this page.

9. NOT PUBLISHED, therefore not on this page — with the document that would close each one

This list is the honest inventory, and every line names the document that would answer it. It is also the list Louis can go and ask for on your behalf. TENURE — freehold or leasehold. The issue document of title (the strata title) for a unit, or a land search on the master title at the Kuala Lumpur Land Office. This is the single most valuable document on this whole job. THE LEASE TERM AND EXPIRY DATE, if it is leasehold. The same title or land search. THE LAND CATEGORY AND ANY RESTRICTION IN INTEREST. The same title or land search. WHETHER THE RESIDENTIAL RM1,000,000 FOREIGN FLOOR REACHES A COMMERCIAL STRATA TITLE. A written determination from the Economic Planning Unit or the Ministry of Economy, or a Malaysian conveyancing solicitor’s written opinion. WHETHER CONSENT TO TRANSFER IS REQUIRED. The title’s own endorsements, or the land office. MUKIM, SEKSYEN, LOT AND PT NUMBERS. The strata title or a land search. ⚠ Seksyen 92A is widely repeated for this locality and was not reached from any source here; it is NOT asserted. THE DBKL BUILDING-PLAN APPROVAL REFERENCE. The DBKL approval letter — not publicly obtainable for a non-HDA building. A FIRM COMPLETION DATE. The CCC for each tower. A FIRM UNIT COUNT AND THE BUILT-UP SCHEDULE. The strata plan or the certified strata roll held by the management corporation. WHICH TOWER A GIVEN UNIT SITS IN. The strata title and the sale and purchase agreement — and given how the portals merge the two pairs, nothing else is reliable. MALAYSIA DIGITAL / MSC DESIGNATED-PREMISES STATUS. MDEC’s own designated-premises register. The claim is third-party and carries no certificate number, so it is published here as a claim to verify and not as a status. GREEN BUILDING INDEX STATUS FOR THESE TWO TOWERS SPECIFICALLY. The certified-buildings directory, which is currently unreachable, or the certificate itself. THE MAINTENANCE CHARGE, THE SINKING FUND AND THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION’S ACCOUNTS. The management corporation’s accounts and Form 1 — published by nobody, and on a building of this vintage a serious buyer question rather than a detail. THIS PROJECT’S OWN PARCEL AREA. Not published by any source, which is why no density figure appears here and why the township-wide land figure on IQI’s page is neither reproduced nor divided by anything. ANY PHOTOGRAPH OF THESE TWO TOWERS FROM THE DEVELOPER. None exists on any of its hosts. AND ONE REGISTER THAT IS OUT OF SCOPE RATHER THAN SILENT: the Selangor state housing register is a residential-only instrument and a Selangor one. Its silence about a commercial office in the Federal Territory is not a finding, and reading its rows here would manufacture a false negative.

10. What this page does not publish, and why

Louis’s standing instruction on his own company’s project materials is absolute, and this paragraph is the only place on this page where these words appear at all. No discount, no rebate, no nett price, no promotion and no commission figure is published here, in either language, in the body or in this page’s structured data. AND THE LARGEST REFUSAL ON THIS PROJECT IS THE PRICE ITSELF. On a licensed housing development this site publishes the filed statutory selling-price range out of the developer’s own legally filed advertisement, because that is a public statutory record, and labels it as one — always with the line that it is not a price list, not a quotation and not an offer. HERE THERE IS NO FILING AT ALL, SO THERE IS NO FILED STATUTORY RANGE IN EXISTENCE, AND THERE IS NOTHING OF THAT KIND TO PUBLISH. Three different “from” figures do exist across three unregulated surfaces — IQI’s own page, a portal, and a portal’s own per-square-foot band — and THEY DO NOT RECONCILE WITH ONE ANOTHER. The multiplication was run rather than assumed: the lower end of that per-square-foot band applied to the agreed 735 sq ft minimum built-up lands BELOW that same surface’s own starting figure. With no statutory floor to measure any of them against there is nothing to reconcile them to, the unreconcilable-figure rule decided it, and NONE of the three is recorded and NONE appears anywhere on this page. Where no filed statutory range exists, the house rule is to publish no price at all and to say that is the rule. AND THE SHARPEST COMPLIANCE RISK ON THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING IS WORTH NAMING, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE RESEARCH RATHER THAN LIKE A BARRED FIGURE. Part of this complex is held inside a listed real estate investment trust, which means rents, net property income, occupancy rates and reversion profiles for that part are published quarterly as a regulatory obligation. A rent divided by a price is a return, so at most one side of any such pair may ever be recorded — and on this project the side recorded is NEITHER. NO RENT, NO RENTAL PER SQUARE FOOT, NO RETURN PROJECTION, NO OCCUPANCY RATE AND NO NET PROPERTY INCOME FIGURE APPEARS ON THIS PAGE, IN EITHER LANGUAGE. And since the trust holds a SIBLING rather than the subject, no trust disclosure belongs on this page at all. One portal’s own transaction averages and asking-price averages for this building are withheld for the same reason: they are that publisher’s data rather than a government registry band, and they sit on the same page as a rent, which makes the pair a return. ON THE ETHNIC-ALLOCATION QUESTION, AND THE SHAPE OF THE ANSWER IS THE ANSWER: THERE IS NO FIELD AT ALL. This is a fourth shape, and it is not the same thing as any of the other three. It is not a populated Bumiputera field whose value has been withheld, because there is no registration in which such a field could exist. It is not a unit quota, because no surface read carries one. And it is not a lot-title classification, because no title document was reached. Three shapes were tested and none of them is present; the fourth, no field at all, is the true position, and saying that precisely is more useful than silence. WHAT IS PUBLISHED HERE, AND DELIBERATELY: the register position and the licence particulars, because they are a public government record; the storey counts and the 735 sq ft built-up floor, each attributed to the surfaces that carry them; the public policy threshold for foreign acquisition, labelled as a residential instrument of uncertain reach; and the tenure dispute itself, printed unresolved. Everything else — the real price of a real unit, and anything attaching to it — comes from the price list and the sale and purchase agreement for a named unit. Not a price list, not a quotation, not an offer. Ask Louis for the asking price in writing with the tower, the floor and the strata area identified, and appoint your own solicitor before you sign anything.

11. Why this page carries no imagery at all

NO VERIFIABLE IMAGE OF THIS BUILDING IS PUBLISHED BY ANY SOURCE, AND WE WILL NOT PUBLISH ONE WHOSE SUBJECT WE CANNOT ESTABLISH. AND THE REASON MATTERS HERE, SO IT IS STATED RATHER THAN HEDGED: the only assets that exist on the developer’s own hosts depict THE WRONG TOWER or are TENANT LOGOS. Thirty distinct image sources were inspected across the developer group’s hosts and not one depicts this building. Every one was refused on subject. The township’s own media library returns six assets for this building’s name, and all six are tenant logos — a courier, a wellness operator, a physiotherapy clinic, an aesthetics clinic, an orchid grower and a care provider. The library is a tenant-logo library, not a building library. The developer’s main property site has NO PROJECT PAGE for this building at all, in either its commercial or its completed category, so there is no gallery to grade; and the one asset in its library that comfortably clears a usable size is a LOCATION MAP, which is refused outright, because nothing may be read off a developer’s map, site plan or stacking plan — not a distance, not an acreage, not a floor plate and not a density. THE INDEX CONTROL PASSED, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES THE ZERO TRUSTWORTHY. A search of the developer’s media index for this building’s name returned nothing, while a control search in the same session on the same host returned real records with readable titles and dimensions. So the zero is a true negative rather than a blocked query. AND THE PROBABLE EXPLANATION IS WORTH STATING, BECAUSE IT MAKES THE ZERO ORDINARY RATHER THAN SUSPICIOUS: the developer sold this component out from 2015 and no longer markets it. It is absent from the developer’s property site and absent from the township’s own current directory. A developer does not keep a marketing image library for a building it finished selling eleven years ago. WHAT WAS REFUSED BY NAME, SO IT CANNOT DRIFT BACK IN: any photograph of the two corporate towers, because that is a photograph of a building the client cannot buy; the two residential siblings’ renders, which are the dangerous pair precisely because IQI’s own page for this project NAMES them in its body copy; a dozen unlabelled “residence gallery” frames belonging to a residential project; a press photo-call group shot, refused on the identifiable-people ground alone; third-party publisher campaign artwork; and any township aerial, which would show eleven buildings of which only two are the subject. AND TWO METHOD NOTES THAT EXPLAIN WHY A FILENAME WAS NEVER TRUSTED. One asset on the township site carries a filename naming one building and a content-management title naming a different one. And on this project the search term itself is ambiguous — the building’s name is also the ordinary word for portrait orientation, so one “match” turned out to be a logo filed as the portrait version of itself. A name match is not a subject match. Nothing was substituted: no stock photograph, no locality map, no logo, no icon set and no sibling’s render. An uncaptioned or wrongly captioned image is worse than no image, and on a page whose entire value is a statutory negative and a tenure contradiction, a photograph of the wrong tower is the specific harm this page exists to prevent. The fix is simple and it is in Louis’s own hands: his own photograph of the two towers from the street, or the developer’s own files with written confirmation of what each one shows. Either solves the subject question, the resolution question and the rights question in one move, and nothing else on this page has to change.

Frequently asked questions — The Vertical Office Suites

If you are weighing a strata office parcel, these are the comparable pages

Published: 21 October 2026 · Last verified: 21 October 2026 · sources: KPKT TEDUH register (licensee 10697 and the registration walk 10697-1–10697-5, positive control run first), UOA Limited audited Annual Report 2015 (Singapore Exchange), all four GreenRE tiers, the Green Building Index directory (unreachable), the Ministry of Economy Garis Panduan Perolehan Hartanah (13 July 2022), National Land Code (Revised 2020) s. 433B, IQI’s own project page, PropertyGuru, StarProperty, EdgeProp, a rental-platform building guide, and the developer group’s own property site, township site and media indexes. Marketing information, not an offer. Louis Koh, Director, LK Group Marketing · IQI Realty Sdn Bhd · Registered Estate Agency · +6010 906 6685.