MoraBanc Bank Fees: What Customers Should Check in Their Contract
Actualizado: hace 9 horas
A documented review of MoraBanc account administration fees, contractual terms, fee notifications and findings by the Andorran Financial Authority (AFA)
Why I am publishing this information
This article is intended to help current and former MoraBanc customers understand what to look for when reviewing MoraBanc bank fees, account administration charges and changes to their banking terms.
That is not necessarily the end of the question.
This article has been written to help current and former MoraBanc customers understand what they may wish to check in their own contracts, tariff schedules and communications from the bank, particularly in relation to account administration fees.
The article is based on an examination of contractual documentation, the fee information contained in that documentation, and findings communicated by the Autoritat Financera Andorrana (AFA) in connection with a specific customer complaint.
My own dispute with MoraBanc has been resolved. I am therefore publishing this information not to pursue that individual matter, but because I believe the underlying documentation and regulatory findings may be useful to other consumers who have had similar banking arrangements.
This article does not claim that every MoraBanc customer has been charged incorrectly or has a claim against the bank. Each customer's contract, fee arrangements, communications and circumstances are different.
1. What does the MoraBanc contract say about commissions?
The banking contract examined for this article contains provisions dealing specifically with commissions and expenses.
The contract states that commissions and expenses are charged in accordance with the applicable terms and rates established and communicated to the account holder. It also refers to the possibility of particular commissions being agreed in the specific contractual documentation.
This is important because it raises a basic question for any customer reviewing historical bank charges:
What commission was actually applicable to my account, and when and how was it communicated to me?
That is not necessarily the same question as:
“Did MoraBanc publish a particular tariff somewhere?”
For consumers, the distinction between a general tariff and the tariff actually applicable to their individual circumstances can be important.
2. MoraBanc Bank Fees: What Does the Contract Say?
One of the most significant provisions in the contract is A.18 – Modification of contractual conditions.
The contract states that MoraBanc may modify contractual conditions, but that the proposed modification is to be communicated to the customer individually, on paper or another durable medium, with at least two months' notice before the modification takes effect.
The clause also states that if the customer does not agree with the proposed modification, the customer may terminate the contract without additional cost attributable to the termination.
For a customer reviewing historical increases in bank fees, this makes the following questions particularly relevant:
What was the original fee?
Was the fee subsequently increased?
When did the new fee take effect?
When was the customer informed?
Was the notification individual?
Was it provided through an appropriate durable medium?
Was the notification made sufficiently in advance?
These are factual questions that can be checked against the customer's own documentation.
3. The €2,250 quarterly account administration fee
The fee schedule contained in the contract is particularly relevant to account administration.
In Annex 1 – Information on Fees and Services, the document lists:
Account administration commission (quarterly): €2,250
It also lists a separate €250 quarterly fee for inactive accounts, as well as other account-related charges.
However, the €2,250 administration fee contains a footnote marked 3.
That footnote states, in translation:
Customers will be exempt from this commission provided that they comply with the conditions specified in the information attached at the end of the table.
This is potentially important for customers who were told, or understood, that they qualified for an exemption or preferential arrangement.
The relevant question is not simply:
“Does the tariff schedule contain a €2,250 fee?”
It is also:
“What were the conditions for exemption, and were those conditions clearly provided and communicated to the customer?”
4. Where are the exemption conditions?
This is one of the points that consumers may wish to examine carefully in their own documentation.
The footnote to the €2,250 administration fee directs the reader to information supposedly attached at the end of the table.
The final section of the copy of the Annex 1 examined for this article is headed “Altra informació important” — “Other important information.”
It contains general information about taxes, standard tariffs, previously communicated tariffs, inactive accounts and other matters.
For example, it states that tariffs relating to services previously communicated but not listed in the document remain in force without changes. It also explains how an inactive account is defined and states that an additional quarterly fee may arise for an inactive account.
A question worth asking
In the particular copy examined for this article, where exactly are the specific conditions referred to in footnote 3 that would allow a customer to be exempt from the €2,250 administration commission?
I am not suggesting that the absence of those conditions from this particular section, by itself, establishes a legal violation.
Rather, this is an example of the type of issue that a customer may reasonably wish to clarify when reviewing their own contractual documentation.
5. The AFA and transparency of banking fees
The contractual documents should also be considered alongside the regulatory framework applicable to financial institutions in Andorra.
The Autoritat Financera Andorrana (AFA) has published guidance concerning the transparency of information provided to customers about fees and charges.
The AFA's complaints procedure also explains that customers should first complain directly to the relevant financial institution. If the institution does not respond within one month, the customer may then submit a complaint to the AFA.
The AFA also makes an important distinction: reports issued by its Claims Service do not resolve contractual liability between a customer and a financial institution. Matters of contractual responsibility are reserved for the courts.
That distinction is important when interpreting the findings discussed below.
6. What did the AFA find in a specific MoraBanc complaint?
The AFA considered a specific complaint concerning administration commissions charged by Mora Banc Grup, SA.
The case involved changes in the administration commission applied to a customer who had previously benefited from a tariff below the ordinary tariff.
According to the AFA's communication, the customer had initially been charged a lower administration fee. The ordinary tariff subsequently increased, while the customer continued to receive a preferential rate.
The administration commission subsequently applied to the customer increased again.
The AFA examined whether the relevant changes had been properly communicated to the customer.
The AFA's conclusion
The AFA expressly concluded that there had been:
“mala praxi (malpractice) per part de Mora Banc Grup, SA”
in the application of the relevant commission at least during the whole of 2020 and the first half of 2021.
This is an important statement because it is the AFA itself—not the customer, not a newspaper and not a website review—that used the expression mala praxi in its findings concerning this specific case.
However, it is equally important to understand exactly what that finding means.
7. What did the AFA say about notification of the fees?
The AFA's analysis focused substantially on notification.
The relevant issue was not merely whether a particular tariff existed somewhere in MoraBanc's tariff documentation.
The AFA considered whether changes to the commission actually applied to the customer had been communicated personally and reliably.
For the period beginning in 2020, the AFA found that it did not have evidence of the required prior personal and reliable communication.
For 2021, the AFA identified a reliable communication dated 9 April 2021, with the relevant change taking effect on 14 June 2021.
The AFA therefore found malpractice in relation to the application of the administration commission during the periods identified in its communication.
8. The AFA also examined proportionality
The issue was not limited to notification.
The AFA also referred to earlier regulatory guidance concerning the application of commissions.
In the specific case examined, the AFA stated that it had not been demonstrated that the relevant administration commissions maintained proportionality with the costs of the services provided by the bank or were in line with international standards.
This is another important distinction.
The AFA did not simply say:
“The commission was expensive, therefore it was unlawful.”
Instead, it examined whether the application of the commission could be justified in accordance with the relevant regulatory principles.
9. What happened with the 2021 contractual documentation?
The AFA also examined documentation associated with the 2021 account contract.
The contract documentation contained the €2,250 quarterly administration commission and referred to an exemption where certain conditions were satisfied.
However, the AFA found an issue with the presentation of those conditions.
The relevant information was not actually shown where the contract indicated that it would be found.
The AFA considered that the bank's explanation of the conditions was not located where it should have been, namely in the relevant annex.
The AFA therefore again identified mala praxi (malpractice) concerning the application of administration commissions for the last two quarters of 2021 and subsequently if the conditions were not correctly communicated.
This is particularly relevant when consumers review their own copies of contractual documentation.
10. Does the AFA finding mean that every MoraBanc customer was wrongly charged?
No.
This is an important point.
The AFA's finding concerned a specific complaint and specific circumstances.
It should not be interpreted as a general ruling that every MoraBanc customer was incorrectly charged administration fees.
Customers may have had:
different contracts;
different negotiated rates;
different exemption conditions;
different notification dates;
different account arrangements; or
different communications with the bank.
The purpose of publishing the information here is therefore not to tell every MoraBanc customer that they have a claim.
It is to encourage customers with potentially similar arrangements to examine their own documentation carefully.
If you are not yet a MoraBanc customer but are considering moving to Andorra, the issues discussed above are also worth understanding before opening an account. Foreign customers may need to consider non-resident account requirements, the language of contractual documentation, applicable fees, online banking and the procedures available if a banking problem later arises.
For a broader look at the Andorran banking system, including fees, transparency, regulation, customer complaints and the issues prospective customers should consider before choosing a bank, see our guide to Andorra Banks: What Customers Should Know Before Banking in Andorra.
For a more specific guide aimed at foreigners considering Andorra, see our article: Moving to Andorra? Banking, Non-Resident Accounts and MoraBanc: What Foreign Customers Should Know.
11. What should MoraBanc customers check?
If you are or were a MoraBanc customer and have concerns about administration fees, you may wish to gather the following documents:
📄 Your original contract
Look for the provisions dealing with:
commissions;
fees;
tariff changes;
contractual modifications;
notification;
preferential rates;
exemptions.
📋 Your tariff schedules
Check:
the amount of the administration fee;
whether it was quarterly or otherwise;
whether there was an exemption;
what conditions applied to the exemption;
whether the tariff changed over time.
📧 Communications from MoraBanc
Look for:
letters;
emails;
secure electronic communications;
notices accompanying statements;
contractual amendments;
notifications of tariff changes.
Pay particular attention to dates.
💶 Your account statements
Compare the fee that was actually charged with the fee that you believe was contractually applicable.
A useful table might look like this:
Date | Fee charged | Fee stated in documentation | Notification received? |
Q1 20XX | €X | €X | Yes / No / Unknown |
Q2 20XX | €X | €X | Yes / No / Unknown |
Q3 20XX | €X | €X | Yes / No / Unknown |
This can make discrepancies much easier to identify.
12. Don't assume that a published tariff answers every question
One of the most important lessons from the AFA material is that customers should distinguish between:
a general tariff
and
the tariff actually applicable to their individual contractual relationship.
A customer may therefore wish to ask:
What fee applied to my account?
When did it change?
What contractual provision allowed the change?
When was I informed?
Can the bank provide evidence of that notification?
If an exemption existed, where were the conditions for that exemption provided?
Those questions are much more useful than simply searching for the highest tariff published by a bank.
13. What if you believe there has been a problem?
The AFA's published procedure provides a clear starting point.
A customer should first submit the complaint directly to the financial institution concerned. If there is no response within one month, the customer may then approach the AFA.
However, the AFA also explains important limitations.
Its Claims Service does not determine contractual liability between the customer and the financial institution, and certain matters—such as a request for a judicial determination that a contractual clause is abusive or a dispute over the economic valuation of damages—are outside the scope of its complaints procedure.
Therefore, anyone considering a complaint should read the AFA's current procedure carefully and obtain appropriate professional advice where necessary.
AFA complaints information: AFA — Complaints procedure
14. Could other customers have similar issues?
It is impossible to determine that from one contract or one complaint alone.
However, if a bank uses standard or substantially similar contractual documentation for multiple customers, it is reasonable for customers with similar arrangements to review their own contracts and communications.
For example, if you have a MoraBanc contract containing:
a substantial quarterly administration fee;
a preferential or negotiated fee;
an exemption from the standard fee;
conditions attached to that exemption; or
subsequent changes to the applicable fee, you may wish to check whether those conditions and changes were clearly documented and communicated to you.
That does not mean that you necessarily have a claim.
It means that you have information that may justify looking more closely at your own records.
15. This article is about consumer information, not a continuing dispute
My own matter concerning MoraBanc has been resolved.
I am not publishing the private terms of that resolution, and this article does not discuss or disclose any confidential settlement arrangements.
The purpose of this article is simply to make consumers aware of issues that may be relevant when reviewing their own banking documentation.
The contractual document reproduced or discussed here should therefore be understood as an example for documentary analysis, not as evidence that every MoraBanc customer has identical contractual terms.
16. A final word for MoraBanc customers
Banking contracts deserve more attention than many customers give them.
A customer may receive a statement showing a significant fee and assume that the charge must be correct because it appears on a bank statement or in a tariff schedule.
But when substantial fees are involved, it can be worthwhile to go back to the underlying documentation and ask:
What did I actually agree to?
What fee was applicable to me?
What conditions applied?
When did those conditions change?
How was I informed?
Can the bank demonstrate when and how I was notified?
The AFA's findings in the specific MoraBanc complaint discussed here demonstrate why those questions can matter.
For consumers, the most useful approach is not simply to assume that a charge is correct—or incorrect—but to examine the contract, the tariff, the communications and the actual charges together.
Important disclaimer
This article is provided for general consumer information and educational purposes only. It is not legal or financial advice and does not establish that any particular customer has a legal claim against MoraBanc.
The AFA findings discussed above relate to a specific complaint and specific circumstances. They should not be interpreted as a determination that all MoraBanc customers were treated in the same way.
Customers with concerns about their own accounts should review their individual documentation and, where appropriate, seek independent professional legal advice.
MoraBanc is not affiliated with this website or with the author of this article.
Relevant resources
For a broader overview of MoraBanc fees, charges, transparency and reported customer experiences, see our guide: MoraBanc Fees and Charges: What Clients Should Know About Hidden Costs and Transparency in Andorra.
Comentarios