Akibat Hukum Pembatalan Putusan BPSK Dalam Sengketa Wanprestasi Pada Perjanjian Pembiayaan Multiguna Antara PT. Astra Sedaya Finance dengan Debitur (Studi Putusan No. 685/Pdt.Sus/BPSK/2024/PN.Mdn)

Abstract

Legal problems arising from the cancellation of the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency (BPSK) decision by the Medan District Court in a case of default that occurred in a multipurpose financing agreement. This research analysis aims to understand the legal consequences arising from the cancellation of the decision on the legal force of the BPSK decision and the legal position of the parties. The formulation of the problem in this thesis is what is the form of the debtor's default in the multipurpose financing agreement at PT. Astra Sedaya Finance, what is the legal background of the Medan District Court in canceling the BPSK decision in the default dispute in the multipurpose financing agreement between PT. Astra Sedaya Finance and the debtor based on decision No.685 / Pdt.Sus / BPSK / 2024 / Pn.Mdn and what are the legal consequences of the cancellation of the BPSK decision in the default dispute in the multipurpose financing agreement between PT. Astra Sedaya Finance and the debtor based on decision No.685 / Pdt.Sus / BPSK / 2024 / Pn.Mdn. The method used in writing this thesis is a normative legal research method, namely an approach that is based on legal norms or provisions and is carried out through literature studies in order to obtain secondary data, including primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials that are relevant to the problem being studied. This research is descriptive. This research also uses regulations and legal sources and is complemented by field studies at BPSK Medan. The data analysis method used is a qualitative approach, based on information collected from interviews with BPSK Medan. The results of the study indicate that the cancellation of the BPSK Medan decision by the Medan District Court occurred because BPSK was considered not authorized to resolve default disputes on multipurpose financing agreements, but rather this authority is the authority of the District Court. The Panel of Judges at the Medan District Court considered that the dispute that occurred was not a consumer dispute, but a default based on a multipurpose financing agreement. The cancellation of the BPSK decision also provides legal certainty, namely the authority of which institution should handle the dispute, in order to protect the interests and legal certainty of the parties.