I would be surprised if the £80 fine is the likely outcome as with a history of "accidentally" not touching in, the pattern here doesn't do you any favours. If there is anything else you'd like to add to the story, more appropriate advice will of course be provided.

It all depends who would have access to this and how respectable and trustworthy the source is deemed to be. In a lot of cases small print gets missed, some employee who may be a few fries short of a happy meal will ignore anyway and an individual left open to have this information shared (perhaps even in public domain). However, what is the betting that even if you shell out to Judge Jackie your details would be removed from this database.

Don't even bother with this. If they can't be bothered to review and send even semi-sensible letters what is the use in replying. Who is really going to read and make sense of any further communication. Kevin Williams age 19 on reception don't care any more!

From my experience, though this does appearing to be changing, the TOCs are out to prove a point and teach a lesson. Their primary aim isn't simply to seek massive financial rewards. SWT won't consider the cost/benefit analysis of taking this to court until its further down the line and will be out to prosecute - or at the least threaten to prosecute in the short term.

Have you an employee representation group or have management initiated a consultation period? If not, perhaps you can suggest one of these. You know more than me about your job and those in charge, but these days you'd be surprised how many bosses welcome such an employee group - saves them hassle, makes employees feel more involved and protected and certainly improves morale when you know you have a voice. Stand up and take the leap my man!

It would depend on each company but in some smaller businesses, the definitiion of excessive sick time would only kick in after you've exhausted the statutory periods over a 12 month period. One company I worked for a few years ago, it had about 400 employees, and when you were sick you were required to call the MD himself to inform him you were going to be off. There was no option of leaving messages with reception, sending an email or texting a colleague. You had to call him personally and it certainly reduced absences. I myself never took a dodgy sick day once I knew I'd have to do my acting over the phone with his lordship. Cruel but effective.

But I would hazard a guess still earning more than me a year through her enterprise. Until there's one of those BBC investigative documentaries on this practice or greater publicity on the fragility of their 'speculative invoices' I can't see it disappearing sadly.

This is reassuring and I guess we hope that RLP doesn't continue to grow, gaining power and respect from the business community to such an extent that employers would actively (ask permission from candidates) and request access to the list. As you say, I'd also hedge a bet this doesn't happen. Continue to fight the good fight against RLP and their, frankly, silly demands.

Yep I've read a lot on this forum and I know more than most about JL. But is there not a risk (however minimal) that when employees are faced with an application form that asks for permission to various checks and databases they will tick the box and allow this - after all by not allowing you make yourself look more guilty. I wanted to see if there was any risk an individual could have provided authority for RLP to release the information by signing anything in the store or by entering into correspondence. And do recruitment consultants not use a varity of agencies and research companies to do detailed background checks on prospective candidates. Could these checks not include the dreaded Lamberts List? Finally - as to whether RLP always act in accordance of the law; who knows! We know civil law can be a minefield and there is ambiguity. How clear-cut is the current DPA/minor issue thats being discussed on another forum on this site. Thanks to all for the advice.

Some questions: RLP do make reference to the infamous database of apprehended shoplifters (or attempted shoplifters) which they claim to pass on to employers. This is presumably a scare tactic to frighten those into paying the speculative invoice and thus removing their name from this database. Whilst I know due to the DPA the individual must grant authority for a third party to gain access I wanted to query whether this does in fact happen. I know that in certain professions when applying for a job or even to register with recruitment consultants they will ask/mention they will check your details against certain databases for any criminal/cival convictions, ongoing disputes, bankruptcy and a myriad of other situations. Often the prospective employee will have little choice but to grant access (otherwise arouse greater suspicion) or in some cases its implied in terms and conditions and condition is granted by way of exception. So - how possible is it that the RLP database could be accessed and would in fact harm the individuals prospects. My belief is that RLP are an immoral organisation and I am truly glad these forums exist to arm those caught up in their web with as much defence as possible. However it does need to be clear to the individuals any risks involved - great or small and for now or in their futures - to the "ignore or one-line-denial" approach. Second question - is an apprehended individual obliged to give their name and/or show ID to store security. What would happen if they refused - police called I'm sure - but would that increase risk of criminal proceedings from the store themselves (I doubt). But would the police be required to pass on ID to the store - or has the individual the right to ask the police not to tell the store - unless they formally request to press charges. Thank you all.