Yes, either through your own payment path or hosted checkout we set up. Card details never pass through Stomeji.
Published June 18, 2026
Yes, and the detail that matters most is how it is done rather than whether it can be done at all.
If you already take payments, the agent routes the resident to your own portal or pay line and never handles the card at all. If you would rather it took the payment in the conversation, that runs through hosted checkout we set up for you. Either way the card goes to the processor and never passes through Stomeji, whether the resident is paying from a text or over a call. The agent only ever sees that the payment cleared.
Any system that receives card details takes on a significant handling obligation, and any system that records calls while card details are being read out has a storage problem on top of that.
Routing through hosted checkout avoids both. The resident enters their details with the payment provider, not with us, so there is nothing sensitive in the transcript and nothing sensitive to store. That is a deliberate architectural choice, not a limitation we worked around.
The point in every case is that paying happens inside the conversation that prompted it. A reminder that requires somebody to go and find a portal, remember a login and start again is where a good share of intended payments quietly fail.
The payment is recorded against the account in your system, the collections sequence for that balance stops, and the conversation is logged with the outcome attached.
That last part matters more than it sounds. The common failure in manual collections is a resident who paid on Tuesday receiving a reminder on Wednesday because the payment had not been reconciled yet. That is the message most likely to produce a complaint, and it is entirely avoidable.
It takes payments. It does not negotiate partial payments, agree a plan, or waive a late fee, because those are decisions with money attached and they belong to a person who can own them.
If somebody wants to discuss what they owe rather than pay it, that is a handoff, and it should be, because those conversations are exactly where your judgement is worth more than any automation.
Before changing anything about how you chase balances, it is worth looking at how hard you are making it to pay. A surprising share of late payment is not unwillingness.
Somebody meant to pay, could not remember the portal password, put it off until the weekend and then forgot again. Nothing about that is solved by a firmer reminder. It is solved by a link that works in the message they already received.
That last one produces the complaints that damage a relationship most, because being chased for money you have already paid is genuinely irritating in a way a simple reminder is not.
Worth a decision before launch, because it comes up constantly and the right answer is not the same everywhere.
Some operators accept anything towards a balance on the basis that something is better than nothing. Others do not, because in their jurisdiction accepting a partial payment can affect what they are able to do next, which is exactly the kind of thing to confirm with your own counsel rather than assume.
Whichever position you take, it belongs in the rules rather than in the judgement of whoever happens to be handling the conversation. If partials are not accepted, the agent says so plainly and routes the person to somebody who can discuss a plan, which is a better outcome than taking the money and creating a problem.
On the site
Keep reading