All the older condos there also OK except this Ken 3. Damn worn out and moldy paint and cheapo facade. From a neutral person point of view.

if got then huat lo...last 3 years got offer at 280k, but i reject the offer...now got to know the unit tranc at 500k...

i am sure u have units at casa damansara also...

Yeah... Fully agree with you...

Ken 3 is such an expensive 'FLAT'...

for ken 3 u get not onli more exposure to sunlight , u oso get special exposure to indons + banglas , thts triple exposures.

u wan so many sunlight for wat? 1200sf nia , u wanna dry salted fishes inside izzit? n sunlight exposure doesnt help in selling values , unless tht building u visiting is so dark u felt u r in a cave la.

n thx for complementing ken 2. as i remember ken 3 doesnt launch at 180k unless for those few baits unit , its above 200k when u reach the launching , so by means i think now even if 500k , its safe to say appreciated 2x.

if u survey thr , any condo launched/ completed around 2006-2008 , appreciate 2x ++ , its a norm , so ken 3 doesnt make a special big leap. casa suites loft 2006 330k now 750k , ken 2 2006 380k now 850k , so all oso double up.

if u wanna measure "successful" like in ur term , casa damansara launch ard 200k now sell above 600k , thts 3x. u shud say casa damansara better liao.

woi the 2nd pic is KEN 2 gym ... dun simply mislead

Very bad. Last time my colleague also same, when all ppl advice him he dun wan to listen. He still insist he is right using misleading proof. Until now he got no fren but he still can always shiok himself1.

i stayed there before... look at the back of the condominum there is a monsoon drain side wall collapse before...

Does anybody have a reasonably priced unit @ Ken Damansara 3 for sale?
1,057 SqFt or 1,200 SqFt doesnt matter, as long as view is not blocked by low cost apartments.

Please PM me, thanks.

but but but...repair oredi

No extra payment for condo buyers (The Star online 29/5/2014)

PUTRAJAYA: Some 50 house buyers can breathe easy now that the Federal Court has put to rest a case where a property development company was demanding they pay extra for their units, resultant from the difference in the actual built-up area and the (estimated) area.

A five-member panel chaired by Court of Appeal president Justice Md Raus Sharif unanimously denied Ken Property Sdn Bhd leave to appeal against a prior court order that 57 residents of Ken Damansara Condominium do not have to pay the adjusted price demanded by the developer upon issuance of their strata titles.

Lawyers for the buyers disclosed yesterday the decision made on May 20.

The decision put an end to Ken Property’s attempt to claim the difference in purchase price based on the difference in the actual built-up area and the (estimated) area stated in the statutory Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) under Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966.





It was reported that the claims against the 57 unit owners ranged between RM2,000 and RM10,000.

The panel – whose other members were Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum and Justices Suriyadi Halim Omar, Zaleha Zahari and Ramly Ali – also ordered Ken Holdings to pay the residents RM10,000 in costs.

The buyers were represented by K. Shan­muga and Azira Aziz while Datuk Loh Siew Cheang, Brian Foong and Eolanda Yeo appeared for Ken Property.

On March 17, 2011, residents of Ken Damansara filed a suit against Ken Property for a court declaration that they need not pay an adjusted price after having agreed to a lower amount in a prior SPA.

They argued that since there was no difference between the floor area stated in the strata title and the building plan, no question of adjusted prices arises.

On June 14, 2013, the Shah Alam High Court ruled in favour of the residents, saying the Adjusted Purchase Price is to be measured based on the difference between the approved building plans and strata title, without reference to the area stated in the recital of the SPA.

Justice Dr Prasad Sandosham Abraham also ordered Ken Property to refund money paid by 31 plaintiffs from 22 units with regard to the adjusted price.

The judge further ordered the defendant to execute the Memorandum of Transfer to the 57 plaintiffs (who own the 40 condominium units) and to pay RM40,000 in costs.

Ken Property attempted to reverse this decision in the Court of Appeal, but had its application denied with RM15,000 in costs on Nov 20 last year.

Fuuh. Long thread. How is living in ken 3 now? Looking at the area for a home

Hi, how is Ken 3 now? Any current stayers thinking of purchasing