Just received another email with an 'attached invoice' at my unique CAG email address. I rang the company who the invoice is purported to be from and they have been inundated with calls about the problem. It appears their email system has been hijacked to send out emails to those caggers who had their email addresses hacked from CAG. I know there is little that you can do.

That is correct - the announcement was made on the very first post in this thread. Three Caggers then posted (including myself) that their CAG email address had received spam; email addresses they had only ever used on CAG. I reiterate that this random generation of email addresses is NOT being used to spam (at least not to my domain name) You have missed my point entirely! I have virtually an infinite number of email addresses on my domain name. I don't have to set up each email address, they simply exists automatically. For example if my domain name was mydomain.com then I would have all the possible email addresses on that domain, for example... [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Currently, I use about 100 such localparts (the bit before the '@'). I just give out the email addresses as I wish WITHOUT having to create them. They can only be used for incoming mail. I trust that has cleared up any confusion.

I have my own domain name from Google and any localpart (that is the bit before '@') will result in a valid email address on that domain. The only spam I am getting is to the exact email address registered on CAG. I see no evidence of 'random generation' of the localpart. If that were the case, my inbox would be littered with every randomly generated localpart on that domain and this has simply never happened to me ever. I am not a frequent user of CAG, so I don't know anything of this. I also think it may be tempting fate, given what happened when CAG accused a former CAG employee of wrongdoing in the past.

They are sending this to my email address that was hacked from Consumer Action Group last year.

No it is a UK phone number. If you look at the original email it has the international dial code (+44) for the UK.

Just received the following email to my CAG-registered email address... Morning, I was hoping to hear from you by now. May I have payment on invoice #84146904339 today please, or would you like a further extension? Best regards, Mauro Reddin +447111855960 The phone number above is invalid, according to Magsys Telephone Code Lookup, as there are no phone numbers beginning 0711 in the UK. The email came from: painted9 @ imperiagold.ru and has an attachment: invc_2014-09-15_76689009765.arj

Now receiving emails, allegedly from UPS, saying there is a parcel for me. The email has an attachment, which presumably contains the virus. All these emails are being sent to the email address that I only ever registered with Consumer Action Group.

Thanks for your reply reply rebel11. I got my money back OK. I just wanted to warn others who may have bought or are considering buying the same product. There appears to be a design fault which means the Panseal will not pump up. The two B&Q stores are referring the problem to their quality department for assessment. The name of the company is Floodtite - that is all I know. You can find the Panseal on the B&Q website - it costs £34.98p but Wickes price is £45.00p Both B&Q and Wickes website show a photo of a product with the name 'Aquatite' but it seems that should now read 'Floodtite'. The pump that comes with the Panseal just will not work so I used an ordinary bike pump to pump it up and that sort of worked - the problem was I still could not get an effective seal under the toilet rim, so it seems pretty useless really. I have seen a similar product on eBay but I don't want to purchase from an eBay seller. I am now considering a one way valve in the sewer but these can be either £100 or £900 depending on the type of sewer pipe I have (so I am told) and the company won't know until they do a survey (which costs £100 + VAT) At least the Panseal could be tested (to some extent) - I don't know how I could test a one-way valve.

Following the floods in late 2013 and early 2014, some B&Q stores are selling flood products under the name of 'Floodtite'. I bought a product called a 'Floodtite Panseal' which is designed to be used in a toilet to prevent backflow of sewage during a flood. I bought two of these from two B&Q stores and a third from Wickes but none of them would even pump up. It is required that they be pumped up to form a seal in the toilet. Each time I tried to pump up the Panseal, it leaked between the pump and the connector. Both B&Q stores have withdrawn the product from sale until the problems is sorted out. I am not sure yet if Wickes has yet done the same. I cannot comment on the other flood products sold by B&Q but they are all made by the same company - Floodtite - and cannot be tested since most are one-time use products. But based on my experience with the Panseal, I would be very wary about buying any Floodtite product. Has anyone else had similar problems with the Panseal?

The best way to deal with this is to contact CISAS. The service is entirely free to use and any decision is legally binding on T Mobile.

You will lose functionality if email addresses are stored with a one-way hash. Encrypted would be the way to go for email addresses. Also, you did not respond to my other questions... Is it just email addresses that have been retrieved? Can these email addresses be associated with forum members' accounts and were passwords retrieved as well?

Same here, I used a unique email to sign-up on CAG. Got spam about a betting system. Is it just email addresses that have been retrieved? Can these email addresses be associated with forum members' accounts and were passwords retrieved as well? Do you store passwords as one-way hashes and why not store user data (such as email addresses) in encrypted format?

The former managing director of First Debt Recovery, ex-Detective Sergeant Christopher Taylor, is currently on trial at Ipswich Crown Court for money laundering and conspiracy to defraud... bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-22121034 In total, four debt recovery agencies in the centre of Wakefield closed in the period Nov 2012 - Jan 2013. In addition to First Debt Recovery, the other three were: Baker and Bond Ltd, Baker & Bond (UK) Ltd and Goldman Vicenti Ltd. insidermedia.com/insider/yorkshire/85806- Baker and Bond Ltd and Baker and Bond (UK) Ltd occupied premises that were being rented to Christopher Taylor, but Christopher Taylor was not a director of these two companies. When Baker and Bond Ltd and Baker and Bond (UK) Ltd were wound up by the High Court it could not be determined who was acting as the director of these two companies. However, I have determined who was acting as director of these two companies and that same person then went on to set up his own debt collection agency - Goldman Vicenti Ltd. That person is called IAN BURROW. Ian Burrow is a friend of Christopher Taylor and the two were often seen chatting at Burrow's coffee bar at 12 Cross Square, Wakefield. The same address was also used by Goldman Vicenti (Burrow's debt collection agency) When Goldman Vicenti was wound up by the High Court in January 2013 it was found that upfront fees for debt collection were charged, but recovered debts were not paid to Goldman Vicenti's clients. In effect, Goldman Vicenti was involved in a type of advance fee fraud but with a double whammy as recovered debts were retained by Goldman Vicenti. Interestingly, ex-Detective Sergeant Taylor's trial also centres on an advance fee fraud involving debt elimination companies run by notorious conman, Toni Muldoon, who has already pleaded guilty in the case involving Christopher Taylor. Taylor is also accused of money laundering for Muldoon in another advance fee fraud involving bogus escort agencies. Interestingly, Ian Burrow had also ran illicit escort agencies some 12-15 years ago and was fined by ICSTIS a total of £107,000 in relation to those agencies... ripoffreport.com/goldman-vicenti/legal-process-services/manchester-other-35f0b.htm

The CAB are correct. The Sale of Goods Act applies, in the main, to business sellers but private sellers are also bound to the description of goods. If they describe the goods as in 'excellent condition' then the goods must be in excellent condition.