<![CDATA[Fulfilling housing needs is one of the basic needs of the community whose fulfillment is increasingly difficult as land prices increase, so the government encourages the Home Ownership Credit (KPR) scheme, including subsidized houses for Low-Income People (MBR), as a more affordable financing instrument. In practice, mortgages often cause disputes between consumers and developers due to unagreed fee collection from the beginning. This article examines the case of mortgage consumers who at the survey stage agreed on a building area of 6×6 meters and a land area of 7×12 meters, but at the time of the credit contract it was known that the actual land area was 10×12 meters, so the developer charged consumers IDR 21,000,000.00 as a fee for the excess area. This study uses a normative juridical method with a legislative approach and a case approach to answer two problems: first, what is the form of legal protection for mortgage consumers against the collection of excess land costs by housing developers; and second, what is the dispute resolution mechanism that consumers can take if the billing is considered detrimental. The results of the study show that legal protection for consumers comes from the principle of good faith in Article 1338 of the Civil Code and consumer rights guaranteed by Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection, so that the collection of fees for the difference in size arising purely due to the developer’s mistake, without new consent from the consumer, has the potential to have no legal basis. Consumers have several dispute resolution channels, ranging from negotiations and summonses, mediation through the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency (BPSK), complaints to mortgage distribution banks, to civil lawsuits to the court if non-litigation efforts do not yield results.]]>
