Published resident feedback includes a report of “water seepage and drainage problems throughout the condo” and drain flies attributed to a septic tank. These are individual reports rather than a published building-wide structural rating, so the evidence is limited and does not establish current prevalence as of 12 October 2026.

Reviews praise the “very nice landscaping,” greenery, views, pool and facilities; one reviewer said the guards were professional and management staff communicated well. However, other reviews describe scattered leaves, moldy furnishings and unclean barbecue tables, while separate accounts report that security and management were “super bad” and that secondhand smoke entered units.

A 2014 Jesselton Hills forum discussion reported that “Most of the wall are uneven with rough finishing” and described the plastering as badly done. This is old, phase-uncertain evidence about the wider Jesselton Hills development, not a Phase 5D inspection or current defect record; no Phase 5D-specific structural review was located.

The available cluster listing is rated 4.3/5 from 81 reviews and includes “Lovely place for peaceful living” and “Beautiful and comfortable.” Negative feedback includes a complaint that visitors must provide vehicle details for entry and a separate warning that visitor information is announced to residents; these comments concern the wider Jesselton Hills listing and are not Phase 5D-specific.

Structural commentary is limited rather than an engineering assessment. One reviewer reported that the development was noisy even on higher floors and that “no soundproof windows were provided”; another said soundproofing between units “could be improved.”

Daily-life feedback strongly praises connectivity, views, the pool and modern condition: one resident described the location as “second to none,” while another said the pool and outdoor areas were “really nice” and “not crowded at all.” The principal operational complaint is security—one review calls the guards “extremely rude even to residents”—alongside reports of visitor parking charges, noise and a small gym.

Published evidence is broadly positive on the asset itself: PropertyGuru reports 4/5 for Interior / Units and 4.1/5 for Common Areas, while one resident described the facilities as “well-maintained.” An EdgeProp/Google review says the development was completed on time and had “minimum defects”; no recurring structural, plumbing, HVAC, electrical, leakage or waterproofing failure was found in the reviewed material.

Residents repeatedly describe a quiet, breezy setting: one wrote that the home was “quiet and tranquil,” while another called the surroundings “very peaceful.” Facilities and management are generally praised—“well-maintained facilities” and “good facilities”—and an EdgeProp/Google review specifically calls the security guards “friendly and helpful”; the main recurring drawback is that transport can be difficult at first before learning the bus and shuttle routes.

The published inspections found generally good but not defect-free workmanship: one inspected unit received 94/100, while another report gave a flat an overall decoration score of 86 and described the stone, doors and paving as satisfactory. Reported defects included a soundproof sliding window that “完全甩開” (came completely off), a loose kitchen socket, a dented air-conditioner cover that could collect rainwater, and platform noise of about 70–75 dB; the developer said the identified repair work had been followed up and completed.

Resident-facing reviews praise the “景觀好、低密度” setting and list clubhouse, pool, billiards, gym and barbecue facilities; another review calls the area quiet and says indoor PM2.5 was about 3x. The main operational/lifestyle criticism is the highway location: one reviewer wrote that it was “人跡罕至，缺乏生活及交通配套，在高速公路旁，噪音大，空氣差,” while the inspection article also found that reaching the refuse room required opening five doors.