CREDIT CARD AND AUTHORIZATION

PARJK JAMES HOTEL: PRE CHECK INS ONLY - incident report: JUAN VILLA

Date: 02/26/2026
System: Stayntouch PMS
Payment Device: Ingenico Lane/3000 AND STAYNTOUCH

Credit Card Authorization Defaulting to $1 & Duplicate Charge PREVENTION.

Risk Areas

Incorrect revenue reporting

Audit discrepancies

PCI compliance concerns

Increased chargebacks or disputes

Accounting adjustments at year-end

Issue During Pre-Check-In- FOR PAY AT HOTEL ($FULL AMOUNT$) OR PRE PAID: INCIDENTALS ($100)

On 02/26/2026, we experienced a recurring payment processing issue during the pre-check-in process involving credit card authorizations and duplicate charges.

Issue Details1. Default $1 Authorization Instead of Correct Amount

When collecting a credit card during pre-check-in:

After swiping the card on the Ingenico Lane/3000 device, the system automatically authorizes $1.00 only, regardless of reservation type.

This occurs on:

Non-prepaid reservations (where room & tax or incidentals should be authorized).

Prepaid reservations (where incidentals, e.g., $100, should be authorized).

Even though Stayntouch clearly reflects the correct balance due (example: $738.24 or incidentals amount), the payment terminal defaults to a $1 authorization.

This requires manual adjustment after the guest arrives, as the correct non-prepaid or incidental amount is not being prompted or automatically processed.

2. Duplicate Charge / Overcharge Incident

On 02/26/2026:

A guest folio reflected the correct balance of $734.24.

During balancing, the system confirmed the total amount.

However, it did not prevent additional payment collection.

The system allowed another charge to be processed.

This resulted in the guest being charged twice.

3. Previous Occurrence (Night Prior)

Upon check-in, the system charged the guest twice.

The authorization was released.

The guest swiped the card on file.

Stayntouch support was contacted and the issue was reported.

Primary Concerns

The payment device is defaulting to a $1 authorization instead of the full room & tax or incidental amount.

The PMS is not automatically pulling the correct authorization amount during pre-check-in.

The system does not block or warn against duplicate charges when balancing the folio.

There appears to be a synchronization or configuration issue between Stayntouch PMS and the Ingenico Lane/3000 terminal.

This creates a significant risk of guest overcharges and disputes.

Action Taken

Duplicate authorization was released (prior incident).

Stayntouch support was contacted.

Incident documented for escalation.

Request for Investigation

Please review:

Why the payment terminal defaults to $1 instead of authorizing the full amount due (room & tax or incidentals).

Why prepaid reservations only authorize $1 instead of the configured incidental hold (e.g., $100).

Why the system allows duplicate charges when the folio already reflects payment confirmation. I CAN JUST SUGGEST ADDING A LAYER OF PREVENTION TO OVERCHARGE WHAT WAS SET PRIOR TO PRE-CHECKED IN RESERVATIONS? 

Detailed Issue Description 1. System Displays Correct Amount Due

Before night audit, during check-in:

The PMS clearly shows the full amount owed (room & tax and/or incidentals).

The folio reflects the accurate balance due.

The system confirms the correct total at the time of payment.

2. Upon Card Swipe – Authorization Defaults to $1

When the guest arrives and the credit card is swiped on the Ingenico Lane/3000 device:

The authorization automatically defaults to $1.00.

This occurs consistently for:

Regular check-ins

Pre-checked-in reservations

Manual pre-check-ins

Prepaid reservations

For prepaid reservations, it still authorizes only $1 instead of the required incidental hold (e.g., $100).

For non-prepaid reservations, it does not default to room & tax or the full balance shown in the PMS.

The amount must then be manually modified after the guest arrives.

Impact

The payment terminal is not pulling the correct authorization amount from Stayntouch.

All incidental authorizations default to $1 instead of the configured hold amount.

This increases risk of:

Incorrect payment processing

Duplicate charges when correcting balances

Guest disputes

Operational delays at check-in

Request for Investigation

Please review:

Why the authorization amount defaults to $1 for all payment types.

Why the system is not automatically pulling the PMS-calculated balance.

Whether this is a configuration issue between Stayntouch PMS and the Ingenico Lane/3000 terminal.

Whether authorization rules are misconfigured for incidentals and prepaid reservations.

This issue is ongoing and affecting every check-in scenario prior to night audit. Immediate review is recommended.

NOTE: I AM REPORTING THIS IS TO HELP US ALL BE SAFE FROM FRAUD AND ADD MAYBE LIVE AGENT INTERFACE STAYNTOUCH - TO HELP WITH ANY OVERPAYMENTS OR TO ALSO FRAG CC UPON CHECK IN. I HAD AN EXPERIENCE THAT MADE ME MORE CONCERN NOT JUST FOR THE SAFETY OF GUEST RESERVATIONS BUT FOR CC OVERCHARGE OR TO ADD A LAYER OF PROTECTION.

" A GUY TRIED TO CHECK IN UNDER A LADYS NAME WITH FULL RESERVATION DETAILS THEN GOT VIOLENT VERBALLY SPEAKING ABOUT HARMING AND STOMPING PEOPLE AND THAT TURNED INTO A POLICE REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN ON FILE.

Approximately five months OR MORE ago, I witnessed an incident involving unauthorized acquisition and use of a female guest’s credit card information.

The reservation was associated with third-party booking platforms, including:

Hotels Tonight

Booking.com

Other third-party booking channels

A male individual obtained the guest’s credit card information through communication via WhatsApp. During this situation, the individual was provided access to or displayed:

Guest reservation details

Hotel information

Guest personal information

Credit card-related information

This sharing of information occurred outside official hotel and third-party communication systems.

Nature of Concern

Based on what I witnessed, this situation involved:

Unauthorized access to confidential guest reservation data

Credit card fraud

Possible identity theft

Improper disclosure of protected guest information

I am not assigning responsibility to any specific platform; however, because the reservation was linked to third-party booking channels, a review of how data was accessed and transmitted may be necessary.

Guest Impact

The female guest experienced emotional and psychological distress.

She repeatedly followed up regarding the leaked information.

A police report was filed in connection with this matter.

Safety Concern

The individual involved displayed behavior that I perceived as unstable and concerning. Given the combination of financial information misuse and data exposure, this raises both fraud and security concerns.


Login or Signup to post a comment