RICHMOND — Customers affected by Verizon directory errors and omissions over the past several years will soon be receiving payments as a result of their claims. The State Corporation Commission (SCC) received claims from more than 2,200 customers by the May 14 deadline as a result of an SCC investigation.
Under the terms of the settlement approved by the Commission last February, Verizon set aside $2 million to compensate individuals and businesses that experienced service affecting directory errors and omissions. The errors involved directories published in 2004, 2005, 2006, and early 2007.
According to the SCC’s Division of Communications, some customers experienced multiple errors or omissions. As a result, the division approved claims for 921 residential customers reporting a total of 1,854 errors or omissions. There were 660 claims from business customers totaling 1,208 errors or omissions.
The payment for each error or omission is estimated to be $100.69 for residential customers and $1,464.60 for business customers. Verizon will be sending checks within 45 days.
Another 651 claims were denied, although 29 customers have requested further review by the Commission. If a specific claim is granted after further review, the payment for each error or omission will be the same as noted above.
Verizon publishes 39 directories in Virginia containing approximately 2.7 million residential listings and over 500,000 business, professional, and government listings. These directories also include listings for other telephone companies providing service in Virginia.
Under a new tariff resulting from the SCC’s investigation, the company now provides automatic credits of local exchange service charges to Verizon customers who experience a directory error. A business listing error or omission will receive a 12-month credit. A six-month credit will be available for a residential listing mistake. Yellow page classified advertising is not regulated by the Commission and errors or omissions affecting such commercial contracts are governed by the terms of the contract.
###
Case Number PUC-2005-00007