Disparities in the Implementation of Assignments in Resolving Problematic Home Ownership Loans

Abstract

Disparities in the Implementation of Cessie in Resolving Problematic Home Ownership Loans (KPR) Create Legal Uncertainty for the Parties Involved, Especially Debtors and Cessionaries. Cessie, as a mechanism for the transfer of receivables from the old creditor to the new creditor, is often chosen by banks to expedite the resolution of problematic loans and reduce Non-Performing Loans (NPL). However, its implementation has shown procedural irregularities. This study aims to analyze the disparities in the application of Cessie in resolving problematic KPRs and provide a review of legal protection for parties harmed by these differences in application. The study uses a normative juridical method with a statutory approach and case approach, analyzing six court decisions that show different judicial assessments regarding the validity of Cessie and the rights of cessionaries. The research results indicate that the disparities arise due to the absence of operational standards as outlined in Article 613 of the Civil Code, as well as the lack of sectoral regulations that technically govern the mechanism for the transfer of receivables in long-term financing products such as KPR. This study emphasizes the need to strengthen the principle of legal certainty and legal protection for both debtors and cessionaries through the harmonization of banking regulations and the establishment of clearer and standardized Cessie implementation guidelines. The recommendations focus on the obligation to provide written notice to debtors, contractual transparency, and the improvement of derivative regulations to prevent prolonged disputes.