Legal Protection Against Home Ownership Credit Debtors with the Flexibility of Banking Policies in Credit Agreements without the Creditor's Permission

Abstract

Introduction: The Job Creation Law's implementation in 2023 will significantly alter corporate rivalry and investment, particularly in the housing industry. This modification attempts to take into account the changing circumstances that both customers of housing and creditors or housing providers must deal with. Law Number 1 of 2011 further stipulates that all Indonesians in middle-class and lower-class economic categories must have access to livable housing. Objective: This article's goals are to clarify the legal ramifications of moving credit with collateral as a home ownership credit object without the creditor's consent and to outline the legal safeguards available to new home ownership credit (KPR) debtors in Medan who are still obligated to their banks by collateral. Methods: The laws and rules governing the distribution and financing of house ownership credit (KPR) in Indonesia are examined using a comparative legal analysis in this article. The efficacy of these regulatory actions is assessed by the author from a formal legal standpoint. The qualitative parameters of agreement laws in house ownership credit (KPR) are included in this study, along with the degree of legislative and banking policy development in Indonesia with regard to KPR financing. Results: Based on the analysis of the Court Decision, the research results demonstrate that credit transfers without the creditor's consent, which are frequently done in society, can be said to be legally valid as long as there are no parties who are disadvantaged and the new debtor has good faith intentions to uphold the rights and obligations of a determined contract. When a credit transfer is done without the consent of the creditor or notary, it is considered legally void and loses legal protection in the event that the new debtor breaches the terms of the agreement between the old and new debtors. Additionally, the new debtor's failure to fulfill their obligations demonstrates their lack of good faith. Conclusion: A policy regarding the validity of transferring home ownership credit (KPR) without the creditor's permission with provisions that do not cause losses to either the creditor or the new debtor should be developed in order to address the issue of legal protection for debtors of KPR who transfer without the creditor's consent.