How to check a developer’s track record

A useful track record is not a wall of project logos or a count taken from a corporate website. It shows which developments the company actually delivered in the relevant role, how each one moved from launch to handover and occupation, what happened after residents moved in, and whether that experience is comparable with the scheme now being sold. A completed low-rise community, for example, is not evidence on its own that the same organisation can execute a complex high-rise mixed-use project.

Start with a small number of earlier developments that resemble the proposed purchase in format and scale. Separate the sales launch from structural completion, handover, occupation and title issuance. Then inspect an operating property rather than relying on a showroom or brochure. The method below turns a broad claim about experience into dated evidence, physical checks and specific questions to resolve before booking.

What a genuine track record shows

A genuine track record answers four questions: what was delivered, which legal entity was responsible, when the project reached each material stage, and how the property performed after occupation. A statement that a company has completed ten projects is of limited value when the list includes developments where it acted only as contractor, sales agent, investor or later owner.

Choose several reference properties and create a concise record for each one: exact project name and location, format and scale, project company, the developer's documented role, promised and actual dates, post-occupation condition and title position. Every point should relate to a named asset and a clear date. Evidence from one development should not be extended automatically to the wider group, another phase or a different legal entity.

The exercise does not guarantee that a future project will finish. Its value is in identifying repeatable strengths, recurring weaknesses and the claims about the new scheme that still need specific to the project proof.

Remove projects where the company had another role

Begin with the company's role, not the length of its portfolio. One development may involve a group brand, landowner, project company or SPV, SPA seller, main contractor, sales agent and building operator. A shared logo or similar company name does not establish that these parties have the same responsibilities.

For each reference project, identify who owned the land, held the approvals, signed with buyers, carried out the construction and completed handover. Where the company was only a contractor, agent, investor or later purchaser of the completed asset, the project is not evidence that it managed the full development cycle. It may still demonstrate experience in that narrower function, but the role must be stated clearly.

Ask for dated primary material and transaction documents rather than relying on a verbal explanation from the sales team. The names appearing in the contract, approvals, land documents and handover records should be matched to the exact legal entity whose experience is being presented.

Separate launch, structure, handover, occupation and title

One 'completed' date can hide several different events. For every reference property, record at least five stages:

1. project or sales launch — when the scheme was introduced and what delivery date buyers were given;

2. structural completion — when the principal building work was completed;

3. handover — when buyers began accepting units or homes;

4. occupation and operation — when the property became usable in practice;

5. title issuance — when buyers began receiving the registered right promised by the transaction.

Place the promised and actual dates side by side. Handover of selected units does not establish that all common areas, services or phases were complete. Physical completion also does not, by itself, establish that the documents needed for lawful occupation are in place. BNG Legal discusses the Certificate of Occupancy as a separate step following completion; its status and relevance must be checked for the particular building and date.

Where titles followed the keys months or years later, record that gap separately. The sequence of events is more informative than a single marketing milestone.

Inspect the property after residents move in

A finished façade says little about how a development operates a year or two later. Visit an occupied property and, where possible, speak with owners or tenants. The review should cover the whole building or community, not only the interior of a selected unit.

Look for recurring defects, lift performance, water reliability, drainage, the condition of corridors and other common areas, day-to-day management, the level and clarity of charges, and the speed with which problems are corrected. Ask what appeared after handover, who dealt with complaints and how long remedial work took.

Distinguish isolated defects from a repeated operational problem. Minor issues can occur in any project; the more important questions are whether they recur, affect safety or normal use, and receive an effective response. In a borey, roads, drainage and utilities deserve separate attention. In a tower, lifts, water, shared building systems and common-property management are central to the assessment.

Compare like with like

Even a well-evidenced earlier project is useful only when it is reasonably comparable with the new one. Compare the segment, scale, location, technical complexity, project company, contractor and key delivery team. A successful borey does not establish capacity for a high-rise mixed-use scheme, and a modest condominium is not equivalent to a project combining residences, a hotel, retail space and complex shared systems.

Check whether the people and organisations behind the earlier result remain involved. A new site, different legal entity, new contractor, different funding structure or a sharp increase in scale can reduce the relevance of the historical example. Where the sales case relies on the parent group's experience, request evidence of the group's actual participation and any obligation it has accepted for the selected project.

A simple comparison matrix is enough: property format, buildings and height, unit count, location, project company, contractor, team, stated schedule and actual outcome. The more material differences there are, the less weight the earlier success should carry in the purchase decision.

How to assess complaints and negative experience

Negative experience should be tested as carefully as positive claims. Record the date, project and phase, the company's role, the nature of the problem and the source. A complaint about a sales agent should not automatically be attributed to the developer, and one contractual dispute should not be generalised to every buyer.

Look for documents, dated reporting and more than one independent account. Consider whether the same issue recurs, how the company responded and whether it was remedied. An older dispute may still matter, but its relevance depends on whether it concerned the same team, project company and property type.

Apply the same standard to praise. An award, an attractive completed building or a claim of on-time delivery does not replace a dated record for the whole stated portfolio. A market downturn or a rise in buyer disputes also does not prove misconduct by a named company. AMRO provides useful macro-level context, but any conclusion about a developer must rest on evidence relating to that company and the selected project.

Track-record checklist

1. Clarify the company's role. Keep a project in the main delivery record only where the relevant role is supported. Record contractor, agent, investor, owner and seller roles separately.

2. Separate completion stages. For every reference property, capture the promised and actual dates for launch, structural completion, handover, occupation and title issuance.

3. Inspect operation. Check defects, lifts, water, drainage, common areas, management, charges and the speed of remedial work after residents move in.

4. Test comparability. Compare the segment, scale, location, project company, contractor and team behind the earlier and proposed developments.

5. Corroborate both positive and negative claims. Date the evidence, distinguish one review from a recurring issue and avoid strengthening a conclusion without independent support.

The output should not be a single score. It should state which earlier projects genuinely belong in the company's record, where delays or gaps between stages occurred, how the properties operate after occupation, and which differences in the new scheme require further checks. Before a material payment, confirm the seller, land, approvals, milestones, handover process and title route from the documents for the exact transaction.