Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

AVS mismatch prevention

We get a lot of calls and emails about AVS mismatch. Customers think we have billed them twice and we have to take time to explain that we didn't and the pending transaction will be removed.


I read somehwere on the fourm about doing an authorization first for $0.00 and then the transaction if it is successful.

Is this the way to go?




Well, you could change your settings to either allow it through (with reporting of triggered filters) or decline it, rather than authorizing and holding for review.


I like the idea of just declinging it without holding it for review.


Where is that setting located?

Log into your control panel, go to Settings -> Security Settings -> Address Verification Service.

That's not going to solve his issue.  He needs a way to get the bank to release the hold on the funds.  So far, there does not appear to be a way to do that.


I just read that here, hmm. Seems like a counterintuitive way to set up the system, I would logically expect that decline means don't charge at all. But personally, I just allow through the transaction as long as the zip code matches. It's hard to mess that up, and people aren't likely to hit it by guessing. Don't know if that's the smartest solution but it's been working for me so far.

The problem we see is assistants using the boss's credit card to make the charge, using information they wrote down a year ago.  So, when the boss got his new card and the CCV number changed, they failed to pass this information along.  So, the assistant tries to use the old information.


We had to resort to blocking them in our app after three failed attempts.  Otherwise, they would run up dozens of declined charges, which results in dozens of holds and dozens of transactions fees to us.


Sounds very annoying, but perhaps industry-specific? The businesses I do work for don't tend to have assistants doing the charging.



I just started blocking them after 3 failed attempts as well, we had the same problem with customers running numerous transactions.


So it sounds like we pretty much need to just deal with it?

Or scream louder since we've been reporting this issue as far back as 2009, if not longer.  We were told back then that a solution was coming.  Guess when the banks are in trouble, solving issues like this gets put on the back burner.