Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"buku ini membahas tentang hukum perlindungan konsumen yang cara penyelesain sengketa."

"Kewenangan Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen (BPSK) dalam melaksanakan penyelesaian sengketa konsumen di sektor jasa keuangan. Jenis penelitian yuridis normatif dengan Socio Legal Research. Setelah terbentuknya Lembaga Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa (LAPS) melalui Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (POJK) di sektor jasa keuangan, atas amanat OJK yang didasari oleh Undang-Undang Otoritas Jasa Keuangan, tidak menghilangkan kewenangan BPSK dalam melaksanakan penyelesaian sengketa di sektor jasa keuangan, karena pilihan atas lembaga mana yang digunakan dalam penyelesaian sengketa, baik BPSK ataupun LAPS merupakan pilihan sukarela para pihak dan atas kesepakatan para pihak yang bersengketa. Dari analisis 7 (tujuh) putusan, mayoritas hakim menolak permohonan keberatan pemohon, karena terdapat hubungan hukum berupa perjanjian pembiayaan. Debitur telah wanprestasi, menurut hakim wanprestasi merupakan kewenangan Peradilan Umum bukan BPSK. Selain itu, terhadap beberapa putusan hakim tidak menerapkan hukum dengan baik, hakim tidak konsisten dalam menjatuhkan putusan, dimana para pihak telah sepakat menentukan pilihan lembaga penyelesaian sengketa, namun hakim dalam pertimbangan hukumnya tidak mencantumkan pertimbangan tersebut. Oleh karena itu dikatakan bahwa BPSK memiliki wewenang dalam menangani sengketa di sektor jasa keuangan akibat ingkar janji/wanprestasi karena UUPK tidak menentukan batas-batas sengketa apa saja yang menjadi kewenangan BPSK, sepanjang terkait dengan sengketa atas peredaran barang dan jasa. Seharusnya, pemerintah merevisi pasal di UUPK terkait sengketa apa saja yang menjadi kewenangan BPSK, agar tidak terjadi disharmonisasi terhadap perundang-undangan yang ada. Hakim sbelum menjatuhkan putusan sebaiknya membuat pertimbangan hukum dengan benar dan bersikap konsisten dalam menjatuhkan putusan.

---

The Dispute Settlement Board (BPSK) in carrying out consumer dispute resolution in the financial services sector. This type of juridical normative research with Socio Legal Research. After the establishment of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Institution (LAPS) through the Financial Services Authority Regulation (POJK) in the financial services sector, as mandated by the OJK which is based on the Financial Services Authority Law, it does not diminish the authority of BPSK in carrying out dispute resolution in the financial services sector, by choice. on which institution is used in dispute resolution, either BPSK or LAPS is a voluntary choice of the parties and on the agreement of the parties in dispute. From the analysis of the 7 (seven) decisions, the majority of judges rejected the petitioner for objection, because there was a legal relationship in the form of a financing agreement. The debtor has defaulted, according to the judge, default is the authority of the General Court, not BPSK. In addition, for several judges' decisions that did not apply the law properly, the judges were inconsistent in making decisions, where the parties had agreed to determine the choice of dispute settlement institutions, but the judges in their legal considerations did not include these considerations. Therefore, it is said that BPSK has the authority to handle disputes in the financial services sector due to broken promises /or defaults because the UUPK does not determine the boundaries of what disputes are the authority of BPSK, as long as they are linked to disputes over the circulation of goods and services. The government should have revised the articles in the UUPK regarding any disputes that fall under the authority of BPSK, so that there is no disharmony with existing laws. Before making a decision, the judge should make proper legal considerations and be consistent in making the decision."

"Telekomunikasi sebagai bagian dari komunikasi menjadi salah satu kebutuhan hidup manusia dalam bermasyarakat, oleh karena itu perkembangan usaha dan konsumen di bidang jasa telekomunikasi meningkat pesat. Pada akhirnya, masyarakat membutuhkan perlindungan hukum atas terjadinya sengketa di bidang jasa telekomunikasi. Adanya hukum perlindungan konsumen dapat dijadikan dasar dalam menyelesaikan sengketa di bidang jasa telekomunikasi. Penyelesaian sengketa antara konsumen dan pelaku usaha jasa telekomunikasi dapat dilakukan melalui peradilan umum atau melalui lembaga khusus yang dibentuk oleh Undang-Undang, yaitu BPSK. Penyelesaian sengketa melalui BPSK dapat dilakukan dengan mediasi, konsiliasi, dan arbitrase. Taufan Oktora Punu sebagai konsumen dari pelaku usaha jasa telekomunikasi PT. Excelcomindo Pratama Tbk merasa dirugikan dan tidak dipenuhi hak-haknya. Taufan Oktora Punu menggugat PT. Excelcomindo Pratama Tbk melalui BPSK dan atas kesepakatan bersama telah memilih untuk menyelesaikan sengketa konsumen secara damai dengan konsiliasi.

---

Telecommunication as a part of communication has become one of the primary needs for people to function in a day to day life. Today, telecommunication is one of the most vital tools for the functionality of a modern human civilization. As a result of this human social behaviour, there had been a sharp increase in the number of companies that provide telecommunication services. Telecommunication companies compete very strongly with each other in the varieties of services they provide to the consumers; as the more options they provide, the more they can reach to different kinds of consumers. Consumers became very vulnerable targets for high-valued promotional campaigns created by telecommunication companies, whose aim is to obtain bigger market shares in exchange of the cost utilized for the purpose to provide customer services. The lack of customer services can often create conflicts between telecommunication service providers and the consumers. When such conflicts regarding the legal rights and obligations of the two parties arise, it is necessary to have customer protection law in place to be used for the basis of settling an agreement or litigation. Conflict resolution can be done through court or through an organization formed by the constitution namely BPSK."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai iklan Telkomsel BlackBerry Internet Service Paket Unlimited yang diduga melanggar ketentuan perundang-undangan yang mengatur mengenai perlindungan konsumen dan periklanan karena memberikan dan menyampaikan informasi secara tidak jelas (menyesatkan). Dalam penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan metode penelitian normatif dengan melakukan penelitian lapangan dan studi kepustakaan. Berdasarkan studi diketahui bahwa hingga saat ini pengaturan periklanan di Indonesia terdapat dalam beberapa pasal dalam peraturan perundang-undangan yang berbeda-beda. Selanjutnya berdasarkan hasil analisis diketahui bahwa iklan Telkomsel BlackBerry Unlimited tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen dan Etika Pariwara Indonesia.

---

This thesis is discussing the alleged violation done by Telkomsel BlackBerry advertisement against the consumer's protection and advertisement law for the delivery of vague and ambiguous (misleading) information. In this study, the authors use the method of normative research with the data gathered from field research and literature studies. According to this study, it is known that until today, the regulation on advertisement in indonesia are scattered in number of different legislation. Another result from the study reveals that Telkomsel BlackBerry Unlimited Advertisment is not in accordance with the provisions contained in the 1999 consumers protection law and advertisement ethics law."

"Negara kita Republik Indonesia adalah negara yang berdasarkan hukum. Hal ini sesuai dengan penjelasan UUD 1945. Dalam negara yang berdasarkan asas hukum dijunjung tinggi hak serta harkat dan martabat manusia. Karena tujuan dari hukum itu sendiri adalah untuk mencapai apa yang dinamakan keadilan. Untuk dapat mewujudkan rasa keadilan itu perlulah ditunjang bersama antara rakyat dan pemerintah untuk bahu-membahu menegakannya. demikian pula halnya yang terjadi didalam sengketa konsumen dan produsen antara para warga kompleks perumahan pondok maritim indah tahap III dengan PT Prima Citra Buana di Surabaya ini, membuktikan bahwa kesadaran akan hak-hak, kewajiban-kewajiban serta harkat dan martabat dari masyarakat Indonesia semakin tinggi."

"Proses penyelesaian sengketa antara pelaku usaha dengan konsumen dibuatselain untuk mendapatkan kepastian hukum juga dengan memperhatikan sisiefektifitas dari prosedur penyelesaian sengketa, sehingga lahirlah proses penyelesaiansengketa yang bisa dilakukan secara nonlitigasi dan penyelesaian secara litigasi.Proses penyelesaian sengketa secara nonlitigasi ini bisa dengan sengketa secaradamai oleh para pihak sendiri. Dan melalui lembaga yang berwenang, yaitu melaluiBPSK dengan menggunakan mekanisme melalui konsiliasi, mediasi atau arbitrase.Dari hasil penelitian ini, dalam prakteknya BPSK selama ini menerima dan memutusperkara wanprestasi, tetapi ketika perkara ini sudah sampai pada tahap PeninjauanKembali, Mahkamah Agung menyatakan bahwa BPSK tidak berwenang atas perkarawanprestasi tersebut. Mahkamah Agung menilai bahwa sengketa yang terjadi dalampelaksanaan perjanjian pembiayaan konsumen baik berdasarkan perjanjian fidusiamaupun hak tanggungan bukanlah termasuk sengketa konsumen, oleh karenanyaBPSK tidak memiliki kewenangan untuk mengadilinya. Sengketa yang timbul daripelaksanaan perjanjian pembiayaan konsumen tersebut menurut MA merupakansengketa perjanjian yang mana hal tersebut merupakan kewenangan dari pengadilannegeri. Diharapkan tidak ada lagi ke tumpang-tindih peraturan hukum, itu harusdiselesaikan dengan baik karena banyak sekali peraturan perundang-undangan yangsaling tumpang-tindih, sehingga menyusahkan untuk penegakan hukum ataupunmenjalankan undang-undang tersebut. Ketidakjelasan ini menimbulkanketidakpastian hukum dan kerugian bari para pihak yang bersengketa, karena tidakmenjamin terselesaikannya sengketa yang efektif dan efisien. Serta perlu adanyaperubahan-perubahan terhadap kaedah-kaedah yang mengatur Badan PenyelesaianSengketa Konsumen (BPSK), sehingga BPSK dapat berperan lebih aktif dalampenyelesaian sengketa konsumen.

---

The dispute resolution process between business actors and consumers is

made in addition to obtaining legal certainty as well as by taking into account the

effective side of the dispute resolution procedure, so that a dispute resolution process

that can be carried out by non-litigation and litigation resolution is born. The nonlitigation

dispute resolution process can be carried out by peaceful disputes by the

parties themselves. And institutions that are in the forest, namely through BPSK by

using through conciliation, mediation or arbitration. From the results of this study, in

practice BPSK has received and decided cases of default, but when this case reached

the Reconsideration stage, the Supreme Court stated that BPSK was not awarded for

the default case. The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the dispute that occurs in

the implementation of consumer financing, whether based on a fiduciary agreement

or a consumer dispute coverage right, by BPSK does not have the authority to try

them. Disputes arising from the implementation of the financing agreement according

to the Supreme Court are disputes which are the authority of the district court. It is

hoped that there will be no more overlapping legal regulations, it must be

implemented properly because many regulations overlap each other, making it

difficult for law enforcement or to implement the law. This uncertainty creates legal

uncertainty and losses for the disputing parties, because it does not guarantee an

effective and efficient resolution of the dispute. And there need to be changes to the

methods that help the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency (BPSK), so that BPSK

can be more active in resolving consumer disputes."

"Kepastian hukum dalam upaya penyelesaian sengketa merupakan faktor terpenting dalam terciptanya perlindungan konsumen. Awal pergerakan perlindungan konsumen di dunia salah satunya berkaitan dengan adanya revolusi industri yang mengubah kedudukan konsumen dan pelaku usaha, perkembangan industrialisasi dan globalisasi yang terjadi di Amerika Serikat dan Eropa yang dalam menyelesaikan penyelesaian sengketa dilakukan dengan sengketa alternatif. Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini dimulai dari bagaimana perbandingan proses penyelesaian sengketa konsumen di Amerika Serikat dan di Indonesia dan bagaimana proses penyelesaian sengketa konsumen melalui penyelesaian sengketa alternatif di Indonesia dilaksanakan untuk memperoleh kepastian hukum bagi konsumen di Indonesia. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian doktrinal yang menggunakan pendekatan komparatif. Hasil dalam penelitian ini adalah Perbandingan penyelesaian sengketa konsumen di Amerika Serikat dan di Indonesia, dalam hal penyelesaian sengketa melalui sengketa alternatif, baik di amerika dan di Indonesia tidak ditemukan perbedaan yang mendasar yang mengkhususkan terhadap konflik antara konsumen dan pelaku usaha. Di Indonesia khususnya penyelesaian sengketa konsumen melalui alternatif dilaksanakan oleh BPSK sebagai lembaga penyelesaian sengketa alternatif di luar pengadilan diberikan kewenangan yudikatif untuk menyelesaikan sengketa konsumen berskala kecil dan bersifat sederhana. Secara kelembagaan BPSK dibentuk berdasarkan adopsi dari model small claim tribunal, seperti yang ada di Amerika Serikat namun pada akhirnya pembentukan BPSK didesain dengan memadukan kedua model small claim tribunal diadaptasikan dengan model pengadilan dan model penyelesaian sengketa alternatif (alternative dispute resolution-ADR) yang menggunakan ciri khas penyelesaian sengketa alternatif khas Indonesia. Namun pada pelaksanaannya keputusan BPSK belum dapat mewujudkan kepastian hukum pada Pasal 54 ayat (3) Undang-Undang Perlindungan Konsumen yang berbunyi “Putusan Majelis bersifat final dan mengikat”, yakni dengan menambahkan ketentuan bahwa Putusan BPSK wajib memuat irah-irah “Demi Keadilan Berdasarkan Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa”, dan lain sebagainya

---

Legal certainty regarding dispute resolution is the most important factor in the creation of consumer protection. One of the early movements of consumer protection in the world was related to the industrial revolution which changed the position of consumers and business actors, the development of industrialization and globalization that occurred in the United States and Europe which in resolving dispute resolution carried out with alternative dispute. The problem in this research starts with how the consumer dispute resolution process in the United States and Indonesia compares and how the consumer dispute resolution process in Indonesia is implemented to obtain legal certainty for consumers in Indonesia. The research method used in this research is doctrinal research that uses a comparative approach. The results in this study are a comparison of consumer dispute resolution in the United States and in Indonesia, in terms of dispute resolution through the courts, both in America and Indonesia there are no fundamental differences that specialize in conflicts between consumers and business actors. In Indonesia, especially through alternative consumer dispute resolution implemented by BPSK as an alternative dispute resolution institution outside the court, it is given judicial authority to resolve small-scale and simple consumer disputes. Institutionally BPSK was formed based on the adoption of the small claim tribunal model, as in the United States but in the end the formation of BPSK was designed by combining the two small claim tribunal models adapted to the court model and the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) model which uses typical Indonesian alternative dispute resolution characteristics specifically in relation to the law assurance, Article 54, paragraph (3) of Law on Consumer Protection that reads “The decision of Assembly shall be final and binding”, and adding the provision that the decision of BPSK shall contain the heading “For the sake of Justice under the One Almighty God”, and others."

"[ABSTRAKMasyarakat sering memanfaatkan jasa perbankan maka banyak hubungan yangterjadi antara masyarakat dan bank dengan perjanjian tertulis atau tidak tertulis.Namun nasabah atau calon nasabah tidak selalu memperhatikan klausula di dalamperjanjian tersebut telah ditetapkan terlebih dahulu oleh Bank. UUPK telahmengatur larangan penggunaan klausula tertentu di dalam perjanjian nasabah danbank, tapi dalam prakteknya terdapat Bank yang mencantumkan klausula bakuseperti melepas tanggungjawab atas kerugian yang dialami nasabah saat sedangatau setelah memanfaatkan jasa perbankan. Bank tidak bisa berlindung denganperjanjian baku yang telah dibuat sebelumnya apabila klausula perjanjian tersebutmencantumkan hal-hal yang dilarang untuk dicantumkan oleh UUPK.

---

ABSTRACTPeople often using banking services, therefore lots of relations happen betweenindividuals and banks, either in the form of written agreement or unwritten consent.However, customers or prospects are not always aware of the contents in the agreementwhereas the clauses has already been provisioned by the bank. UUPK prohibits the usageof such particular clause in the mentioned above agreement, in common practice, thereare banks that include prohibited clauses. One of the clause that is prohibited by UUPKto be included in the bank-customer agreement is ?bank is not responsible for customer?sloss while and/or after using the bank?s services?. In fact, Bank that cause loss tocustomers has to be responsible for customer?s loss and can not protect itself using thestandard clauses that has been made before by the bank, if such clauses are prohibited byUUPK to be included in the bank-customers agreement.;People often using banking services, therefore lots of relations happen betweenindividuals and banks, either in the form of written agreement or unwritten consent.However, customers or prospects are not always aware of the contents in the agreementwhereas the clauses has already been provisioned by the bank. UUPK prohibits the usageof such particular clause in the mentioned above agreement, in common practice, thereare banks that include prohibited clauses. One of the clause that is prohibited by UUPKto be included in the bank-customer agreement is ?bank is not responsible for customer?sloss while and/or after using the bank?s services?. In fact, Bank that cause loss tocustomers has to be responsible for customer?s loss and can not protect itself using thestandard clauses that has been made before by the bank, if such clauses are prohibited byUUPK to be included in the bank-customers agreement., People often using banking services, therefore lots of relations happen betweenindividuals and banks, either in the form of written agreement or unwritten consent.However, customers or prospects are not always aware of the contents in the agreementwhereas the clauses has already been provisioned by the bank. UUPK prohibits the usageof such particular clause in the mentioned above agreement, in common practice, thereare banks that include prohibited clauses. One of the clause that is prohibited by UUPKto be included in the bank-customer agreement is “bank is not responsible for customer’sloss while and/or after using the bank’s services”. In fact, Bank that cause loss tocustomers has to be responsible for customer’s loss and can not protect itself using thestandard clauses that has been made before by the bank, if such clauses are prohibited byUUPK to be included in the bank-customers agreement.]"