The Board of Consumers Dispute Counseling [BPSK] kept expecting consumers complaint to be channeled through BPSK. Settlement of dispute could be through arbitration or conciliation. BPSK held mandate of the Law of Consumers’ Protection [UUPK] No. 8/1999. “We would tackle if there is any business association who seem to retaliate. Other Laws such as the OJK [law No. 21/2011 on Financial Authority services could not clash head on with UUPK.” Yohannes Tobing, member of BPSK of the Jakarta Municipality disclosed to Business News [20/5].
UUPK by legal hierarcy was higher than the OJK Law, because UUPK had been effective 12 years sooner than OJK. Besides, UUPK was ‘legal umbrella’ of all other laws. “UUPK was the umbrella, wrongdoers could never evade BPSK’s call” Yohanes remarked.
BPSK felt it necessary to comment on the Association of Indonesian Financing Company [APPI] to set up a mediation body under the coordination of OJK. PT Adira Finance, a member of APPI once threw a discourse to set up a mediation agency to intervene financing agency abd consumers. “The was we see it, a leasing agency like Adira have no intention to follow up letter of calling. We only had forwarded 3 documents of dispute to PPNS Investigating agency of the Ministry of Trade.”
The action was necessary because the doer ignored letter of summon for mediation process, while consumers complaint to financing agencies continued year after year. “If they plan to build a mediation agency, it would consist of Bank Indonesia people and bankers. They are not independent because they are all businesspeople. The mediation process would not be objective.”
The OJK mediation body would share the same portion with bodies formed by various insurance associations. A body formed to be filled with ‘personnel’ who were managers of insurance associations and bankers. “The case of BPSK is different, our management helm is manned by YLKI people, businessplayers like KADIN, Government officials and consumers. They are representative of various circles involved directly in consumer’s protection.”
BPSK had the authority to make examination of the truth in reports and information of the conflicting people, to see or demand receipt, invoices or billing, test lab results etc. BPSK’s stipulations were binding and serve as final solution to all parties. “There are many consumer’s complaints especially in cases of leasing. Lately they seem to issue a circular letter stating as if they do not break any law and refuse to come.” (SS)