Why does my most recently developed roll look so bad?

[alpreston]

To me, the fogging looks uneven, being more pronounced toward the ends of the images, and less in the centre. That tells me that it is NOT a processing error. Nor does it look like background radiation fog - which would also give an overall grainy appearance.
Several of the negatives are underexposed, which does make them difficult to scan - and there is noticeable dust on them which indicates poor scanning technique and/or equipment.
An observation: many of the images are back-lit. (Note that the window behind the cat, the street light, and several of the other backgrounds are overexposed, but the foregrounds are underexposed). It looks like the meter is favouring the background. Check to see if the camera has a spot-metering or centre-weighted option - in most of these images, metering off the primary subject will give a better exposure. (One of the reasons I keep a handheld incident-light meter in my camera bag!).
BTW, the blue tint in the last photo of the young woman is a lighting issue - she's standing in a shaded area lit by blue sky rather than direct sunlight.
To put my remarks in context, I should mention that I started processing my own B&W film and prints in 1961, hand processing colour prints in 1966, and slide film (Kodak E3 and Agfa P45, also by hand) in 1971/72 (as part of my Photographic Technology studies), and worked in the photolab industry most of my working life.

 

[alpreston]

A chemical issue with developing would be visible across all the frames ... this does not appear to be the case, based on the second image.
The first and last look like underexposure, and compensated during the scan.
Showing the negatives would reveal much to us.

Chemical (and radiation) issues also show up in the rebate area - the area outside the image frame. That's one of the reasons the various markings, other than the numbers and arrows, are on the edge of the film.