Introduction
Wikipedia reports:
Agnew worked as an Assistant Ombudsman at the Local Government Ombudsman. Prior to appointment Rosemary was Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission an appointment that she took up on 26 October 2010.
From the Information Commissioners website:
Rosemary Agnew took up post as Scottish Information Commissioner on 1 May 2012 for a fixed term of six years. Previously, Rosemary was Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and prior to her work with the SLCC, she worked for the Local Government Ombudsman for eight years. Throughout her career she has been committed to the principles of accountability and transparency and has worked with a range of public and private sector organisations to deliver service and procedural improvements.
Accountability Scotland's then Secretary expected great things of her . . . as did we all. See the Summary.
Appointment
The Scottish Parliament will next week be invited to nominate Rosemary Agnew to Her Majesty for appointment as the new Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
Ms Agnew succeeded Jim Martin who stood down from the post on 30 April 2017.
The appointment follows an open recruitment process which sought candidates who could demonstrate: excellent judgement to reach sound and impartial decisions; highly developed influencing and communication skills; a proven track record of strategic leadership; and demonstrable experience of delivering results.
Ms Agnew will took up post on 1 May 2017.
This is a full-time, fixed term appointment for eight years and attracts a salary of £83k.
Biographical information
Rosemary Agnew was previously Scottish Information Commissioner, a post she held since 1 May 2012.
Rosemary’s experience of complaint handling within regulatory and quasi-judicial systems to consider and adjudicate on dissatisfaction with public services is extensive, and goes back to 2001. Prior to being the Scottish Information Commissioner she was the Chief Executive of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and immediately before that worked as an Assistant Ombudsman for the UK Local Government Ombudsman.
Rosemary is an MBA graduate, with distinction, of Manchester Business School. In addition to her complaint-handling experience, she has managed and led organisations through major change and applied her in-depth understanding of governance to good effect.
All of this has given her insight into different approaches to complaint handling and how important such roles are to the way in which people interact and engage with decision-makers and public services.
Monitor and promote best practice in complaints handling.
In 2016, the Ombudsman became the independent reviewer of the Scottish Welfare Fund and the Ombudsman’s role will be further expanded in 2017 when, as part of health and social care integration, the Ombudsman will be able to consider professional judgment in relation to social work complaints.
The Scottish Parliament was asked to agree Ms Agnew’s nomination on Tuesday 7 February 2017. The motion was as follows:
Bob Doris MSP on behalf of the Selection Panel: Appointment of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
That the Parliament nominates Rosemary Agnew to Her Majesty The Queen for appointment as the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman under Section 1 of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002.
Year ended: 31st March 2017 - Under Jim Martin
Overview of Report
- Nota Bene: This report covers the last period under Jim Martin
- Number of pages: 42 [Only three with no information]. Click here for the Report.
- Title: "Vision and Values"
- Staff Numbers: 58 [up from 48] plus the Ombudsman. See the SPSO's Financial Report [another 41 pages], let alone the 20 page Audit Report by Deloitte here - with its watery logo. [Quote: The audit fee for 2016/17 is £17,260 as detailed in our Audit Plan]
- Costs - See page 30 of the Financial Report above . . . the simple summary in a very wordy report . . . not all about accounts.
- Received: The first comment is that these figures are provided several times in different reports: Statistics, Finance, and even the Report - where the breakdown was by mode of communication, method & sector. There were 1,404 enquiries and 4,182 complaints - a total of 5,586 contacts. Noted that some enquiries were treated as Stage 1 complaints.
See Table.
Noted: From April 2016, we logged many of the quickly-resolved queries as signposting enquiries instead, as this better reflects the amount of work entailed at this stage. This change in recording explains the 85% increase in enquiries received and the 9% decrease in complaints received
compared with the previous year. - Complaint decisions:
Service Delivery Complaints
Year ended: 31st March 2018
Overview of Report
- Number of pages:
- Title:
- Staff Numbers
- Costs -
- Received:
- Complaint decisions:
Service Delivery Complaints
Year ended: 31st March 2019
Overview of Report
- Number of pages:
- Title:
- Staff Numbers
- Costs -
- Received:
- Complaint decisions:
Service Delivery Complaints
Year ended: 31st March 2020
Overview of Report
- Number of pages:
- Title:
- Staff Numbers
- Costs -
- Received:
- Complaint decisions:
Service Delivery Complaints
Year ended: 31st March 2021
Overview of Report
- Number of pages:
- Title:
- Staff Numbers
- Costs -
- Received:
- Complaint decisions:
Service Delivery Complaints
Year ended: 31st March 2022
Overview of Report
- Number of pages:
- Title:
- Staff Numbers
- Costs -
- Received:
- Complaint decisions:
Service Delivery Complaints
Year ended: 31st March 2023
Missing Governance Information
- A member of Accountability Scotland referred the SPSO to their Independent Reviewer for mishandling their Service Complaint.
- It was upheld at Stage 1 in the member's favour which should have been the end of the matter.
- The SPSO then issued a Stage 2 decision against the member despite this not being requested.
- This is not allowed under the process so the member referred matters to the SPSO's Independent Reviewer who found in the SPSO's favour on the basis that the Stage 2 decision was for a different service complaint.
- It wasn't, it was for the same complaint so the member submitted a formal Request for Rectification of personal data as this was wrong, i.e., the member had not made the second service complaint as the SPSO was claiming.
- When the SPSO failed to do this matters were referred to the ICO who agreed with the member with the ICO giving the SPSO 14 days to rectify their data.
- On 29 March 2022, the Information Commissioner instructed the SPSO to reveal the amount of money wasted on court costs and lawyers. It amounted to £14,134.80p.
- When they failed to do this the member told the SPSO that they wanted compensation for the distress this unlawful conduct was causing and if they did not agree to it the member would start legal action against them for this.
- When the SPSO ignored this the member raised a court action against the SPSO. The outcome was that they reviewed matters again, agreed with our member that they had got it wrong, rectified this data, nullified the Stage 2 decision and agreed to pay our member £550 compensation for the distress their breach of data legislation had caused him.
On 5 October 2022, a Sheriff ordered compensation and costs to be paid by the SPSO to the member for the distress caused caused by unlawfully altering records.
- This sad saga is NOT reported in the either the SPSO's report, nor the Independent Reviewer's report.
Missing Service Complaint Information
A member of Accountability Scotland had a considerable number of inter-reactions with the SPSO staff, who failed to treat him in a fair and reasonable manner, meaning the that their behaviourable conduct was unsatisfactory, and demeaning. In common parlance the SOSO staff attempted to "rubbish" him.
That this happened consistently and probably on about ten occasions indictaes it was deliberate.
Overview of Report
- Number of pages:
- Title:
- Staff Numbers
- Costs -
- Received:
- Complaint decisions:
Service Delivery Complaints
Year ended: 31st March 2024
Overview of Report
- Number of pages:
- Title:
- Staff Numbers
- Costs -
- Received:
- Complaint decisions:
Service Delivery Complaints
Summary
Are the damages and costs of £656.00 paid to an A/S member following his taking the matter to court and settling [confirmed by an Order of the Sheriff Court] thereafter shown in the SPSO Report [which includes Governance], or the SPSO Accounts, or even the SPSO Audit Report ? Noted that this was after spending £14,134.80 in legal fees. The number of staff hours spent is unknown - but could be more than twice the legal fees in cost - so maybe the SPSO wasted £50,000 or more than 1.5% of their annual expenditure.