The National Consumer’s Consumer Board [BPKN] admitted there were still loopholes in the Regulation which enabled businesspeople to be evasive. The Law for Consumers’ protection [UUPK] No. 8/1999 and Decree of the Ministry of Industry and Trading No.350/2001 on the Execution of Duty and Authority of BPSK had the potential to weaken consumer protection. “The Ministrial Decree No. 350/2001 contained Articles related to BPSK sessions. We have tried but still not revised,” Coordinator of Commission III BPKN Djamal Abisin Simanjuntak disclosed to Business News [11/8].
BPSK was established as an effort to settle consumers dispute off-court. The objective was to arrive at an agreement between the conflicting parties on the form and size of compensation fee or other action. The guarantee was that consumer would not suffer repeated disadvantage due to act of businesspeople. “Frankly speaking, our Regulation had loopholes and pitfalls. The result was that it was hard for BPSK for mediation process, conciliation or arbitration; and yet the spirit of UUPK was suppose to be win-win solution. Fast solution and free of charge”
One of the example of problem was very often businesspeople used the services of a lawyer in a BPSK court session. The interest of a businesspeople was ‘not negotiable’ and very frequently they misinterpreted the term Tupoksi [main task and function]. “Legal settlement in BPSK only takes 3 weeks, compare this with settlement at public court, so much more complicated.”
BPSK was on the frontier line in accommodating consumers’ complaint. But BPSK Tupoksi must be differentiated from Common Court. “BPSK accommodated cases off-court. Our concern is that the Government is not facilitating operationals of BPSK. The State Court and BPSK had one thing in common to serve people who seek for justice; but BPSK facilities was way below the court. We hope there us greater attention on the Government side on BPSK as they also carry the mission to enforce the Law”.
Simultaneously BPKN felt it necessary to empower BPK to better strength. The BPSK facility did not directly affect the quality of dispute settlement. For example the Jakarta BPSK which settled 100 to 200 cases of complaint in 2013 last : every case was settled in 4 to 5 court sessions. In total, BPSK member managed 400 sessions in a year. “Unaccomplished settlement of cases involved 20 to 30 consumers. There were cases which could not possibly be settled because the dispute was between business peope vs. business people.” (SS)
Business New - August 15, 2014