Martin: 1st May 2009 - 30 April 2016

There is not much publicly available information on Jim Martin. 

Wikipedia's data is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Martin

Information from the now defunct OmbudsmanWatchers.org.uk web site was taken on 06 June 2015, and is shown below:

Other news:

Herald and Times archive 16th December 1994

THE general secretary of one of Scotland's top five trade unions  unexpectedly quit his £48,000 a year post yesterday. Mr Jim Martin, who took over the leadership of the Educational Institute of Scotland more than six years ago, is to join Scottish Amicable, one of the biggest UK life assurance societies, in the new year.

Companies House reports that "MARTIN, James Stuart" was a Director for one year from 4 June 1998 to 31 March 1999.
It appears he has had a number of reportable appointments: see here. His occupation is stated as "General Manager Corp. Services".

The EIS web site lists secretaries including: 1988 – 1995 James Martin

Overview of Report

• Number of pages: 40 [36 in the actual report].  Click here for the Report.
• Title: "I've arrived"
• Note 1: No mention is made of the temporary appointment of Drake prior to his arrival.
• Note 2: Summary: 300 recommendations about almost 500 issues in almost 90 different bodies. [Sounds good for an effective 99% rejection rate]
• Staff Numbers - 47 [Taken from 2010 report]
• Costs - £3.3 Million. See screenshot.
• Received: 4,040 of which 1,165 were enquiries leaving 2,875 complaints, about which just 173 reports were published, upholding just 43 [1.06%].
  See Screenshot for statistics. Note the percentages are no longer shown.
• Reiterates the Plan and Objectives for 2008–11.

• Complaint decisions - no record

Ros Gardner, The Independent Service Delivery Reviewer reports:

• Remit:
  • Provide resolution to the complainant
  • Make recommendations about the SPSO’s handling of complaints referred to them by the public
  • Identify and analyse training needs, and develop and deliver appropriate programmes
• From the two complaints, four findings:
  • Lack of clarity regarding the Ombudsman’s remit, leading to mismanaged expectations on the part of the complainant;
  • Lack of clarity in communication;
  • Significant delays at various stages in the complaint examination and investigation;
  • Failure to adhere to the SPSO’s Service Delivery Complaints procedure;

Overview of Report

• Number of pages: 48. Click here for the Report.
• Title: "Altered the way enquiries and complaints are categorised and went mad with colours !"
• Staff Numbers - 47.
• Costs - £3.3 Million. See screenshot.
• Received: 4,430 of which 906 were enquiries leaving 3,534 complaints, about which just 173 reports were published, upholding just 46 [1.30%]. If partly held complaints are included this rises to 3.14%.
  Revised classifications - three new ones all including the word "discretionary".
  See Table: Note: the figures are on shown two pages: page 43 should be A3 but shown as two A4's [pages 43 and 44].
  Note: OOJ means "Out of Jurisdiction".
• Reiterates AGAIN the Plan and Objectives for 2008–11
• Complaint decisions - no record

Reviewer’s Report on 10 complaints.

Most of the complaints related to how the SPSO handled complaints about various public bodies in Scotland. The issues raised included:

• Delays and the time taken to complete a report
• Issues regarding the Ombudsman’s remit
• Lack of clarity regarding the detail of the complaint being considered by the SPSO
• Confusion in the period prior to SPSO deciding whether to investigate a complaint or not
• Use of SPSO advisers
• Issues regarding the transition period prior to the appointment of a new Ombudsman
• Perception of the independence of SPSO
• The SPSO's failure to follow its own policies and procedures for handling complaints about public bodies
• Signposting to the Independent Service

Findings: Throughout my investigation of the various complaints certain themes reoccurred. These indicated areas of concern regarding the complaints handling process within the office. The major themes that arose were:

• Significant delays in the handling of complaints about public bodies
• Confusion regarding the detail of specific complaints (one complaint was changed four times during the investigation process)
• Confusion between the outcome (decision of the Ombudsman) and the process of investigation (service delivery)
• Lack of transparency in the process
• Categorisation of service delivery complaints
• Impact of controlling email contact

Overview of Report

• Number of pages: 64. Click here for the Report.
• Title: "Improving Complaints Procedures" - which in modern terms might mean heading for "Net Zero"
• Note 1: [What is] Fit for SPSO criteria [?]
  • that the complaint is about an organisation and a subject that the law allows us to consider,
  • that it has completed that organisation’s complaint process.
• Note 2:  SPSO reporting criteria:
  • Significant personal injustice – an explicit administrative or service failure by a public body resulting in personal detriment of a severity and nature that requires wider acknowledgement and recognition,
  • Systemic failure – a failure of more than one element or component in a whole system designed to deliver a service or particular outcome to members of the public,
  • Precedent and test cases – where a decision on the part of the SPSO will establish a reference point for future case handling and potentially impact upon matters of wider public policy.
  • Local complaints procedure failures – significant failing of any element or component in a local complaints or representations procedure resulting in a poor customer experience and/or the loss of explicit rights and entitlements under the procedure,
  • Special and exceptions reporting – where persistent non-cooperation of a public body with SPSO recommendations (either through a decision or report) requires the non-compliance to be highlighted to Parliament.
• Staff Numbers - 46.
• Costs - £3.0 Million [including £90k earnings]. See screenshot.
• Received: 4,106 of which 755 were enquiries leaving 3,351 complaints, about which just 173 reports were published, upholding just 90 [2.69%], and if the 141 partly upheld are included this is 6.90%.
  NOTA BENE: On page 4 of the report, it states: "we upheld or partly upheld 34%" [of valid complaints]. How this is calculated is unknown. It is not unreasonable to assume that the majority of, if not all, complainants have been recommended by someone to go to the SPSO.
  Classifications revised AGAIN: Not completing BUJ procedures has been removed, along with Discontinued, and Not upheld - with recommendations.
  See Table: Note: the figures are on shown two pages: page 60 should be A3 but shown as two A4's [pages 60 and 61].
  Note: OOJ means "Out of Jurisdiction".
• The increasing ratio of complaints to enquiries over the last eight years is shown in this screenshot.
• Under the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc Act 2010, the functions of the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission (SPCC) transferred to the SPSO on 1st October 2010. As a result of investigating these complaints, we made 49 recommendations to four organisations, including that they:
  
  • allow a complainant to resubmit his complaints through the prison complaint system and convene a hearing to review those complaints.
  • re-open and investigate a complaint about their organisation.
  • review their complaints process to ensure that a formal process is in place to allow for complaints made against the Chief Executive to be considered
  • revisit a decision to place a prisoner on an anti-bullying strategy and inform him of the outcome; and remind all staff of the importance of ensuring that the reasons for placing a prisoner on this strategy are based on full and accurate information
  • tell individual prisoners when they can expect to access identified offending behaviour programmes
  • action a review and issue guidance to staff on the process for receiving and opening prisoner mail from external medical facilities
  • apologise for not providing a satisfactory explanation about why a prisoner was not allowed unescorted day release
  • update the Ombudsman on the outcome of a consultation about proposed changes to the assessment process for offender related programmes
• The increasing verbiosity of the report, illustrated by its increasing length, probably leads to the point of it becoming confusing ! This is supported by the Independent Reviewer's review below
• Complaint decisions - available for reports issued from June 2011

Independent Service Delivery Review [on 9 complaints]

The reviewer has stated: I have reviewed two complaints relating directly to the Ombudsman himself.

Findings

As I have noted, most complaints contained multiple elements, each of which required independent consideration and decision.

In total, 25 separate elements of complaint were raised in the nine cases. The issues that I investigated included:

• lack of clarity over the Ombudsman’s remit and delay in explaining why a matter did or did not fall within its remit
• the SPSO had not followed its internal processes correctly
• the SPSO’s internal investigation into its service delivery was inadequate, including excessive delays
• the quality of SPSO correspondence (poor grammar, punctuation and layout)
• failure by the SPSO to explain its decision and refusal to provide further clarification on the matter
• refusal by the Ombudsman to answer a letter
• SPSO personnel ignored complaints and the delay resulted in the complaints becoming time-barred
• confusion regarding decisions to reopen or to re-investigate complaints

The key recommendations that I made for the office were:

• the role and remit of the Ombudsman still requires greater clarity
• the remit of the Independent Reviewer requires clear explanation at the time of referral
• once a decision has been taken not to progress a complaint, this decision should be adhered to unless new material has been identified
• greater clarification as to what is being investigated during the complaint process
• when delays arise, complainants should be kept informed on a regular basis.

Overview of Report

• Number of pages: 60. Click here for the Report.
• Title: "10 years" and expanding the complaint handling empire.
• Staff Numbers - 45 - doing more with fewer people - see screenshot [Shows no of enquiries & complaints increasing with one less member of staff].
• Note 1: Key Priorities. Item 5: Deliver operational efficiency, effectiveness and accountability through clearly defined priorities, performance measures and resources that meet business needs, while supporting development of new areas of business.
• Costs - £3.5 Million [up 10%] [including £93k earnings]. See screenshot.
• Complaints about Water matters were handled from 1st July 2011. A separate analysis of the findings is being made.
• Received: 4,374 of which 626 were enquiries leaving 3,748 complaints, upholding just 110 [2.93%] about which just 199 reports were published; if partly upheld is includes this rises to 7.95%.
  Classifications were revised yet AGAIN: removed "Others" from Complaints - Advice, and "OOJ's" from Early Resolution 2.
  See Table: Note: the figures are on shown on page 57 compressed onto an A4 page, but although printed as landscape were shown "sideways" in portrait mode demonstrating a lack of technical ability as before.

• Complaint decisions - available for reports issued from June 2011

Independent Service Delivery Reviews [on 13 complaints]

Ros Gardner: April 2011– November 2011

Of nine complaints, three were partly upheld. The Ombudsman’s criteria for review are clearly stated in the SPSO’s published procedures, namely that to be eligible for a review the complainant must provide evidence that:

• is new to the investigation and/or
• has been overlooked or misrepresented in the original investigation

David Thomas: November 2011– March 2012

Of four complaints, three were found to be handling errors. No formal comments were made.

Overview of Report

• Number of pages: 56. Click here for the Report.
• Title: "Improving [and simplifying] complaints handling"
• Note 1: Abstracts from the report:
  • 23% increase in complaints, and a 15% reduction in resource,
  • It is disappointing that in 2012/13, I upheld 46% of the complaints that were valid for us to look at, compared with 39% in the previous year. [compared to 4.51% Accountability Scotland alculate].
  • A new mini quango "The Complaints Standards Authority (CSA)." was created.
  • Administrative justice is the sphere of justice that seeks to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected when powerful public bodies make decisions. For this to work effectively, individuals need to know how to participate in, question and challenge decisions that affect them and their communities.
  • My ultimate commitment is to ensure justice for the people of Scotland. [Why the photograph of a theodolite on page 4 ?]
  • We track every recommendation to ensure that the organisation implements it within a specified timescale and provides suitable evidence to show that it has done so effectively.
  • We are well on course to achieve a fully standardised complaints system across the public sector in 2013/14
• Note 2: Further abstracts:
  • The SPSO was formed in 2002 as a one-stop shop to reduce this complexity and our experience is that simplicity is of great benefit to users. This was emphasised in the Crerar and Sinclair reviews and the more recent Christie Commission report.
  • As a free, accessible alternative to the courts, we provided over 4,000 people with access to independent advice and final stage reviews on decisions made by public bodies. NOTED: this is a very small number compared to similar cases in the Sheriff's Courts. Precise figures do NOT seem to be availabel.
  • The Government’s invitation for the SPSO to discuss their intention to develop a Strategy for Administrative Justice in Scotland.
    NOTED that STAJAC [Scottish Tribunals and Administrative Justice Advisory Committee] was abolished in 2015 and has never been replaced.
• Note 3: Complaints Standards Authority (CSA). It provided responses or input to:
  • the consultation on the integration of adult health and social care in Scotland;
  • the Scottish Housing Regulator's consultation on Scottish Social Housing Charter indicators; and
  • the consultation on the Charter of Patient Rights and Responsibilities (introduced by the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011).
• Staff Numbers - 47 [Up 2].
• Costs - £3.23 Million [down 7%] [including £180k earnings]. See screenshot.
• Received: 4,608 of which 531 were enquiries leaving 4,077 complaints, upholding just 184 [4.51%]. If partly upheld complaints are included this rises to 10.69%. The number of reports laid before parliament is NOT given. 
  Classifications were further revised yet AGAIN: Soime categories were removed, and some renamed. What does "Not duly made" mean ?
  See Table: Note: the figures shown on page 54 are compressed onto an A4 page, but although printed as landscape were shown "sideways" in portrait mode demonstrating a continuing lack of technical ability as before. Page 43 is similar.

Governance and Accountability

John Vine, chair of the SPSO Audit and Advisory Committee stated as follows:

In all these areas, we were impressed by the clarity and breadth of the evidence provided and the partnership and problem-solving approach shown by the Ombudsman and his senior management team.

Service Delivery Complaints

Report from David Thomas, Independent Service Delivery Reviewer reads as follows:

• It is uncommon for public sector ombudsman schemes to have arrangements for service delivery complaints to be reviewed externally. It is to SPSO’s credit that they voluntarily created such arrangements in April 2007.
• In 2012/13, the SPSO received 45 formal service delivery complaints out of the total 4,651 cases received. Of these, 24 were not upheld, 18 were fully or partly upheld, two had no decision reached and one was withdrawn.
• During the year ended 31 March 2013, 11 people referred service delivery complaints to me. Two of them complained about two cases. So I looked at 13 case files in tota.
• Some of the complainants found it difficult to distinguish between:
  • their view of the merits of their complaint (which is not a matter for me), and
  • their view of the way in which the case was handled (which can be for me).
• In five of the cases that I looked at, I considered that there had been a handling error in either the case itself or the service delivery complaint: a lack of clarity, a minor delay or a minor procedural error. These handling errors did not have any significant impact on the five cases, but indicated areas in which SPSO might consider improvements to their process
• In seven of the cases that I looked at, I considered that the service delivery complaints were entirely unfounded. SPSO had dealt with the cases impartially, efficiently and with considerable patience.

Overview of Report

• Number of pages: 60. Click here for the Report.
• Title: "Transforming Scotland’s Complaints Culture" - surely this should read "... Complaints Handling Culture"
• Note 1: Some abstracts from the report and comments thereon:
  • I recognise the courage and stamina it can take to make a complaint about a public service and we work hard to put things right and to bring about learning and change through the complaints that we see.
  • As in so many businesses that are demand-led, there is an inherent tension in balancing service user and other stakeholder needs.
    Noted: The SPSO is NOT a business - it pretends to offer "administrative justice" whilst ignoring the fundamental rules of natural justice.
    Complainants are NOT Customers, but people suffering from a failure of Administrative Justice.
  • Our quality assurance (QA) process, which ensures that our decision-making is robust and consistent.
    Noted: The SPSO has a a total lack of understanding of the meaning of the term "Quality".
    There is little doubt that it would fail to be certified to the snards required by ISO9001
• Staff Numbers - 46 [Down 1].
• Note 2: On performance:
  • Despite the increase in case volumes, we met two of our three internal timescales, as detailed below:
    • PI-1 99% (target: 95% of advice stage complaints handled within 10 working days)
    • PI-2 70% (target: 95% of early resolution complaints decided or moved to more complex investigation stage within 50 working days)
    • PI-3 96% (target: 95% of investigation complaints decided within 260 working days)
  • Noted: The  PSO shows no signs of wanting to help in a timelly manner.
• Costs - £3.23 Million [unchanged [including £154k earnings down from £180k]. See screenshot.
• Received: 4,771 of which 363 were enquiries leaving 4,408 complaints, upholding just 241 [up from 184] [5.46%]. The number of reports laid before parliament is NOT given. If partly [now called "some" for some strange reason] upheld complaints are included this rises to 10.21% - a small reduction from 10.69% the previous year.
  "Partly upheld" has been replaced with "Some upheld". If they mean "some part of a complaint was upheld" then "partly upheld" is simply better use of the English language."
  See Table: Note: the figures shown on page 54 are not shown in an easily readable form. Somewhat meaningless tables of percentages are scattered throughout the report. The table of "reduction in premature complaints" has figures ranging from 45% to 39% [wow] when the weighted mean is in fact only 8% which is almost insignificant.
  Another table is the redirection of the 363 enquiries to some 43 other organisations. Not really reportable at all in our view meaning that there were only 43 genuine enquiries.
• Complaint decisions continue to be available, but those relating to "Prisons" are NOT available.
• The "empire building" continues [page 23] e.g. The Complaints Standards Authority carried out is first compliance tests.
• Providing a list of people attending meetings is an attempt at something which is unclear . . . not even name dropping.

Service Delivery Complaints

David Thomas, Independent Service Delivery Reviewer

All the cases turned on their own facts, but areas where SPSO may wish to keep its processes under review include:

• ensuring time limits for complainants always have regard to the actual circumstances of the case and the particular complainant
• giving a final warning before closing a case because of lack of cooperation by the complainant; and
• being clear about whether or not SPSO could or would require the public body to pay compensation

Overview of Report

• Number of pages: 48 [Down from 60 the previous year]. Click here for the Report.
• Title: Includes "justice, best practice, clarity, efficiency, sharing findings" [except for prisons etc]
• Staff Numbers - Not given.
• Note 1: Quality Assurance
  • In addition to senior level review of some case decisions, we ensure quality through our QA process. Our current process involves randomly testing a 10% sample of our work on recently closed cases at different stages in our process on a quarterly basis. The findings help us identify areas for improvement and examples of best practice, and also help us determine our focus on quality for each year. In 2014/15 we began work on further developing our QA criteria to align them more clearly with our newly developed customer service standards.
  • We carried out an initial scoping exercise of what other schemes already had in place, and took into account the ISO standard for quality (ISO9001).
  • Comment: It is apparent that the SPSO does not have the first idea about "Quality". Is this evidence of the sheer terror at the possibility of a truly independent audit ?
• Note 2: BUJ's are required to publish annual performance against the following indicators:
  
  • Indicator 1 number of complaints received
  • Indicator 2 proportion of complaints handled at the frontline
  • Indicator 3 complaints upheld, partially upheld and not upheld
  • Indicator 4 average times
  • Indicator 5 performance against timescales
  • Indicator 6 number of cases where an extension is authorised
  • Indicator 7 customer satisfaction
  • Indicator 8 learning from complaints
• Costs - Not given except descriptively. See abstracted table.
  The table reflects the "Financial Position" statement on page 33, and the costs given in the previous year.
  Click here for full details of all Financial Reports.
  Best comment is "that nothing adds up". An extra columns hows the previous year [2014] for direct comparison with last years figures. The figures are not directly comparable, and thus misleading.
  Despite this statement: "We continued our efficiency drive through reducing costs as a result of the revenue generated by our training unit and the shared services agreements we have developed (we share our Edinburgh office with the Scottish Human Rights Commission and provide HR expertise to Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People)", income fell from $154k to £122k for the year.
• Received: 5,574 of which 772 were enquiries leaving 4,802 complaints, upholding just 287 [up from 241] [6.00%]. The number of reports laid before parliament is NOT given. If partly [now called "some"] upheld complaints are included this rises to 9.78% - again a small reduction from 10.21% the previous year.
  See Table: Note: the figures shown on page 44 are shown rotated, so not in an easily readable form. Again the report is liberally splattered with tables of metrics which would have been better shown in the main table.
• Complaint decisions; Noted that on page 7 the SPSO states "Of the complaints received in the Scottish Government and devolved administration sector, 52% were about prisons."

Service Delivery Complaints

Casework performance

We received 53 service complaints in 2014/15 from 4,895 complaints (1.08% of our caseload) and responded to 51 in this period, of which 15 (29%) had elements that were upheld or partly upheld.

Report from David Thomas - Independent Service Delivery Reviewer

During the period May to October 2014 I dealt with service delivery complaints in seven cases. In all of the cases, the Ombudsman and his staff provided me with all of the information that I required. Besides looking at the specific service delivery concerns raised with me, I also carefully reviewed the whole of the case files in question.

I did not uphold the service delivery complaint in six of the cases. I was satisfied that SPSO had dealt with these cases effectively, efficiently and fairly.

In the seventh case, I partly upheld the complaint – because I did not think SPSO had done enough to dispel the complainant’s misunderstanding about one aspect of SPSO’s procedure, though it did not affect the outcome of the case. SPSO accepted my conclusions and apologised to the complainant

Report from Jodi Berg and Elizabeth Derrington - Independent Customer Complaints Reviewers

In the four months to April 2015 we received eight referrals and completed three full reviews. In a fourth case we carried out an initial assessment and concluded that we could not help the complainant achieve the result he was seeking and, therefore, that a review by us would not be productive. Work on the remaining four cases continued into 2015–16.

Overview of Report

• Number of pages: 40 [of which 4 have no content].  Click here for the Report.
• Title: "Goodbye, BUT"
• Staff Numbers - 48 plus the Ombudsman. See the SPSO's Financial Report.
• Costs - See the report above.
• Some notes which illustrate the appalling lack of knowledge of the meaning of Quality Management which is well defined in ISO9001, successor to BS5750, successor to AQAP - which are all about reducing complaints and cockups which are hugely expensive, and often very damaging:
  • Strategic objective 1: to provide a high quality, user-focused independent complaints handling service. [8 pages]. This section highlights:
    • volumes and types of enquiries and complaints
    • advice and support
    • complaints by sector
    • performance of authorities
    • our service delivery
    • continuous improvement activities and initiatives
    • how we involved stakeholders in improving our service
  • We met two of three of our timescale performance indicators [PI's]:
    • PI–1 (target: 95% of advice stage complaints handled within 10 working days) 99%
    • PI–2 (target: 95% of early resolution complaints decided or moved to more complex investigation stage within 70 working days) 89%
    • PI–3 (target: 95% of investigation complaints decided within 260 working days) 97%
  • Quality assurance (QA): Comment: reveals absolutely that the SPSO has no idea about anything to do with "Quality Management".
  • Strategic objective 2: to support public service improvement in Scotland
    Water complaints 51.8% classed as premature [page 13]. Separate survey under way.
    Comment: Experience shows that SW / SWBS are almost impossible to complain against - they do NOT respect the Law of Scotland with respect to "Eligible Premises
  • Strategic objective 2: to support public service improvement in Scotland [5 pages] This section highlights:
    • Why we make recommendations
    • the Learning and Improvement Unit
    • publicising our findings
    • how we used casework to contribute to policy
    • how we prepared for our new Scottish Welfare Fund role.
  • Improving Complaints Handling Strategic objectives 3 & 4 [6 pages]
  • Strategic objective 5: to be an accountable, best value organisation
• Received: 5,396 of which 760 [including telephone calls, only 5 for the SPSO] were enquiries leaving 4,636 complaints, upholding just 267 [down from 287] [5.75%]. The number of reports laid before parliament is NOT given. If partly [now called "some"] upheld complaints are included this rises to 10.42% - a small rise from 9.78% the previous year.
  See Table: Note: the figures shown on page 37 are shown rotated.
• Complaint decisions: "Of the complaints in the Scottish Government and devolved administration sector, 331 (58%) were about prisons [page 8]".

Service Delivery Complaints

Governance and Accountability [8 pages]

Report from Dr Tom Frawley, Chair of the SPSO Audit and Advisory Committee. Provide the committee’s opinion about:

• the effectiveness of governance, risk management and control;
• the comprehensiveness of assurances in meeting the Ombudsman’s and management needs;
• the reliability and integrity of these assurances;
• reviewing the integrity of the financial statements; and
• advising the Ombudsman as Accounting Officer about how effectively the assurances support him in decision-taking and in discharging his accountability obligations.

The committee sought to seek reassurance that:

• the risk management culture was appropriate; there was a comprehensive process for identifying and evaluating risk and for reviewing what level of risk was acceptable;
• the risk register accurately recorded and reflected the risk being faced by the SPSO;
• management had an informed and realistic view of how effective controlswere;
• risk management was being implemented in a way that benefitted the SPSO and added value;
• all staff had an awareness of the importance of risk management and the need to proactively identify risk;
• the systems of internal controls were effective; and
• the Accounting Officer’s annual governance statement was realistic and supported by meaningful evidence.

Complaints about SPSO

The main failings identified

• Delays and failures in communication in the handling of a complaint, specifically in attempting to understand the basis of the complaint.
• We had said to a complainant that we would contact them to discuss their complaint. As we did not have their telephone number, we were unable to do so and we issued our decision on the case without doing so.
• Our response to a complainant’s request for review took longer than our target time of 20 working days.

Report from Jodi Berg and Elizabeth Derrington, Independent Customer Complaints Reviewers

We upheld or partly upheld 11 complaint issues and made 14 recommendations to SPSO. Six were for a formal apology, and eight for SPSO to consider process improvements. We identified potential for improvement in three areas:

• managing expectations regarding the progress of an investigation or review
• ensuring clarity about the issues for investigation
• avoiding any impression of bias.

Compliments about SPSO

Twelve in number.
Comment: One is reminded of Trustpilot and the rules of Normal Distribution.

This report was published by Rosemary Agnew and laid before parliament in October 2017 - some six months after the period it covers.

The first four years seem to have been spent in tweaking the report formats to increase the number of complaints which were failed for one reason or another.

Two more significant areas of complaints were absorbed into the SPSO's empire, namley Water, and Prisons. Only the metrics for the former are specifically identified. Where the prisons data is hidden remains a mystery - lumped in with the Scottish Government - which may say a lot ?

The number of "positive" case studies reeks of behaviour mimicking organisations found on web sites like "TrustPilot". The data simply does not meet with the rules of statistical norms . . . meaning the distribution of extremes does not follow a "normal distribution" pattern. This implies that the case studies cannot be relied upon.

The use and abuse of data to show a picture which is not entirely accurate may be described as misleading. See the comment on the 2014 report about enquiries. They might as well record the number of telephone calls made and received. They do include enquiry telephone calls.

One has the impression that the reports are being written in the latter years to specifically deflect comments that were being made on the Accountability Scotland [this] website, and various Petitions.

As long as the SPSO strives to show that there is an effective Quality Management System, the more it becomes clear that the SPSO has not the first clue as to how to implement one, let alone transport that into the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government, Scottish Local Authorities, let alone the Scottish National Health Service.

"Prevention is better than cure" - as the second ferry suffers from exactly the same problems as the first . . . the requirements of pipework for handling cold gas - as reported by the BBC.