<![CDATA[The growth of the financing industry meets modern societal needs but also presents distinct challenges, particularly regarding legal certainty in the repossession of assets subject to fiduciary security. This study aims to analyze the legal framework governing company liability when utilizing third-party debt collection services and to examine legal certainty and the restoration of debtor rights in cases of unilateral and unlawful asset repossession. A normative-juridical research method was employed, utilizing a statutory approach and qualitatively analyzing primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The findings indicate that the current regulatory framework regarding the use of external services remains fragmented, scattered across the Fiduciary Security Law, the Consumer Protection Law, the PPSK Law, Constitutional Court Decisions No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 and No. 2/PUU-XIX/2021, as well as OJK Regulations (POJK) No. 35/POJK.05/2018 and No. 22 of 2023. Following the Constitutional Court rulings, optimal legal certainty regarding liability for third-party execution of security interests has yet to be achieved; self-execution requires the debtor's voluntary surrender of the asset, otherwise, execution must proceed via a petition to the District Court. Although OJK regulations affirm the principle of rights restoration and prohibit intimidation or violence, practical implementation reveals regulatory gaps and legal uncertainty stemming from insufficient field oversight and the lack of a clearly integrated mechanism for compensation liability. Consequently, there is a need to refine specific regulations that define liability limits, delegation schemes, and balanced legal protections for both debtors and financing companies.]]>
