Kajian Yuridis Tentang Kelalaian Petugas Bank terhadap Surat Peringatan Lelang Tanpa Tanda Tangan Nasabah (Studi Kasus Perkara No. 40/Pdt.G/2020/PN.Mdn)

Abstract

Judging from the provisions of Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection which is explained in Article 18 concerning Standard Clauses, it explains the provisions in making an agreement that includes standard clauses. Customers as consumers are required to receive legal protection for the use of service products offered by the bank. Guarantees with Mortgage are given through the Deed of Granting Mortgage (APHT), if the debtor as the provider of Mortgage is in default (default). Execution of the Mortgage Guarantee is the last step taken by the creditor as the recipient of the Mortgage if the creditor or bank in collecting non-performing financing is not effective enough, then based on Article 20 paragraph (1) letter b of Law Number 4 of 1996 concerning Mortgage, it can be conducted by way of public auction. The main issues are: (1) How is the position of the debtor in the Mortgage execution process, (2) What are the legal consequences of implementing Mortgage execution without a warning letter, (3) How is the law applied by the Panel of Judges regarding the Mortgage Execution without a Warning Letter. This study uses a normative juridical approach. The normative juridical approach is an approach that is based on the main legal material by examining theories, concepts, legal principles and laws and regulations related to this research. From the analysis above, I conclude that the bank has correctly given warnings I, II and III to Dodi Sutanto's customers and the negligence made by the Bank is that the auction warning letter did not arrive because Dodi Sutanto is in prison. The negligence made by the Bank Officer was not directly conveying it to Dodi Sutanto, therefore Dodi Sutanto filed a lawsuit to the Court because he felt that he had been harmed, his collateral rights were auctioned by the Bank. According to the applicable legal procedures on the basis of the available evidence, it is indeed proven that the Bank has issued warnings I, II and III but did not reach the customer.