UK Accessibility Statement — Equality Act + WCAG 2.2

Last verified

Drafting reference for UK accessibility statements — Equality Act 2010 reasonable adjustments, PSBAR 2018, WCAG 2.1 / 2.2 AA, private-sector statements.

An accessibility statement is the document by which the operator of a website or mobile application discloses its conformance with technical accessibility standards, its known non-accessible content, the alternatives it provides, and the route for users to request improvements or escalate complaints. For public sector bodies in the UK, the statement is mandatory under the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 (PSBAR, SI 2018/952). For private sector services, the statement is voluntary in form but the underlying obligation to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 applies to every service provider — and publishing an accessibility statement is the prevailing means by which a service provider documents its compliance posture and provides a user-feedback channel.

See Privacy Notice for the data-protection companion and Consumer Contract Terms for the paid-service overlay.

Applicable Law

Equality Act 2010. Sections 20-22 of the Equality Act 2010 impose the duty to make reasonable adjustments on (among others) service providers — defined in s.31(1) as “a person who is concerned with the provision of a service to the public or to a section of the public”. The duty has three components under s.20:

  1. Provision, criterion or practice (PCP) — where a PCP puts disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled persons, the service provider must take reasonable steps to avoid the disadvantage.
  2. Physical features — where a physical feature puts disabled persons at substantial disadvantage, reasonable steps must be taken to avoid the disadvantage (limited application to digital services but relevant for assistive-technology compatibility configured as a “physical-equivalent” feature).
  3. Auxiliary aid or service — where a disabled person would, but for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at substantial disadvantage, reasonable steps must be taken to provide the aid.

The duty is anticipatory — it applies before a specific disabled user encounters a barrier, not only reactively to a complaint. The service provider must consider what disabled users in general might require. Cost, practicability, and the disruption of the adjustment can be relevant to reasonableness but cannot be used to defeat the duty wholesale.

“Disability” is defined in s.6: a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. “Long-term” means lasting, or likely to last, 12 months or more, or for the rest of the person’s life (Schedule 1 paragraph 2). HIV, cancer and multiple sclerosis are deemed disabilities from diagnosis (Schedule 1 paragraph 6). Schedule 1 also addresses progressive conditions, recurring conditions, and the disregard of medical treatment in assessing impact (paragraph 5).

Breach of the duty. A failure to comply with the duty is a form of discrimination under s.21 EA 2010. Remedies include declarations, injunctions, and damages — including injury to feelings — in the County Court (s.114 EA 2010). The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) provides initial information and conciliation; the Equality and Human Rights Commission has strategic-enforcement powers under the Equality Act 2006.

PSBAR 2018. The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 (SI 2018/952) transpose Directive (EU) 2016/2102 and continue to apply in the UK post-Brexit. The Regulations cover public sector bodies — central government, local authorities, NHS bodies, publicly-funded educational institutions, and a defined set of bodies governed by public law. Three core obligations apply:

  1. Conformance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA (incorporated by reference to BS EN 301 549) for websites and mobile applications, subject to defined exceptions and the disproportionate-burden defence.
  2. Publication of an accessibility statement in a prescribed format (reg 8 + Schedule 1).
  3. Feedback mechanism allowing users to report non-accessible content and request information in an accessible alternative.

Enforcement is by the Cabinet Office’s Central Digital and Data Office (CDDO, formerly GDS) for central-government bodies and by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for others. Complaints by users route through the Equality Advisory and Support Service as the designated enforcement point. PSBAR 2018 does not create an independent civil cause of action for non-conformance — the Equality Act 2010 reasonable-adjustments route remains the substantive cause of action.

Online Safety Act 2023. Although not a dedicated accessibility statute, the OSA 2023 imposes risk-assessment and safety-duty obligations on regulated services that are likely to be accessed by children. The risk-assessment obligations under ss.10-12 OSA (children risk assessment) include consideration of how features of the service might present a risk to disabled children — and operators are expected to address accessibility as part of the duty of care. Ofcom’s draft codes of practice on the children’s safety duty reference accessibility considerations.

WCAG Standards — 2.1 vs 2.2

WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the standard incorporated by PSBAR 2018 (through BS EN 301 549 v3, which adopts WCAG 2.1 as its web technical baseline). The current Web Content Accessibility Guidelines hierarchy is structured around the POUR principles — Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust — each subdivided into a set of guidelines and 50 success criteria across Level A (25), Level AA (13 additional) and Level AAA (12 additional).

WCAG 2.2 was published as a W3C Recommendation on 5 October 2023 and adds nine new success criteria (most at AA level). Notable additions:

  • 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) — AA
  • 2.4.12 Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced) — AAA
  • 2.4.13 Focus Appearance — AAA
  • 2.5.7 Dragging Movements — AA
  • 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) — AA
  • 3.2.6 Consistent Help — A
  • 3.3.7 Redundant Entry — A
  • 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) — AA
  • 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced) — AAA

PSBAR 2018 has not yet been amended to reference WCAG 2.2 directly, but the underlying BS EN 301 549 standard has updated drafts incorporating WCAG 2.2 expected to be finalised in the EU process; UK public-sector bodies are advised by GOV.UK to align with WCAG 2.2 AA as best practice. Private sector operators publishing voluntary statements should adopt WCAG 2.2 AA as the technical reference — it is the current W3C Recommendation and consensus standard.

BS EN 301 549

BS EN 301 549 is the European harmonised standard for accessibility requirements suitable for public procurement of ICT products and services, developed by ETSI / CEN / CENELEC. The current version (v3.2.1 of 2021, with v4 in process) covers websites, mobile apps, electronic documents, hardware (with embedded interactions), software, support services, and other ICT. The web-content section (clause 9) is functionally equivalent to WCAG 2.1 AA; clauses 10-14 extend to non-web content, hardware, and assistive-technology compatibility.

BS EN 301 549 is the technical reference incorporated by PSBAR 2018. Private-sector operators procuring ICT products that need to integrate with assistive technology should likewise reference BS EN 301 549.

Content of the Accessibility Statement — PSBAR Schedule 1

PSBAR Schedule 1 prescribes the format for public-sector statements. The same architecture is the prevailing pattern for voluntary private-sector statements. A compliant statement contains:

  1. Statement of conformance. One of three explicit declarations: fully compliant (every WCAG 2.1 AA success criterion satisfied), partially compliant (some non-compliance, listed), or not compliant.
  2. Non-accessible content. An itemised list of the specific WCAG success criteria not satisfied, the part(s) of the service affected, and the reasons — non-compliance, disproportionate burden, or content out of scope.
  3. Disproportionate-burden assessment. Where the disproportionate-burden defence is relied upon (reg 7 PSBAR), the documented assessment must be summarised. The Regulations require the assessment to consider: the size, resources and nature of the body; the estimated costs and benefits in relation to the estimated benefits for disabled persons; and the use of the website/app.
  4. Out-of-scope content. Content excluded from the Regulations by reg 4 — pre-recorded time-based media published before 23 September 2020; live time-based media; online maps not for navigational use; third-party content not procured, developed or funded by the public body and not under its control; reproductions of items in heritage collections that cannot be made fully accessible; archived content meeting the regulatory archive definition.
  5. Preparation and review date. The date the statement was first prepared, the date it was last reviewed, and the date of the last accessibility test/audit.
  6. Method of preparation. Whether the conformance assessment is self-assessment, third-party audit, user testing with disabled users, or a combination. The methodology used.
  7. Feedback and contact information. A means for users to report inaccessible content, to request information in an alternative format, and to give feedback. Response commitment (PSBAR requires that requests for content in accessible format be responded to within a reasonable period).
  8. Enforcement procedure. For public sector — escalation route to the Equality Advisory and Support Service. For private sector — typically a link to EASS as a courtesy and a reference to the operator’s complaints procedure.
  9. Technical specifications. The technical baseline (typically WCAG 2.1 AA, with explicit reference to whether 2.2 criteria are also targeted) and BS EN 301 549 alignment.

Disproportionate Burden Defence (Public Sector)

Regulation 7 PSBAR permits a public sector body not to comply with the WCAG 2.1 AA requirement where doing so would impose a disproportionate burden. The assessment is itemised and time-limited — the burden must be reassessed at intervals — and the body must provide an accessible alternative for the affected content where reasonable.

Three factors are weighed:

  • Size, resources and nature of the body.
  • Estimated costs and benefits.
  • Estimated frequency and duration of use.

The defence is not available for content that is mission-critical, that is the principal route by which a service is delivered, or that affects user access to legally-required information. Cost alone is not a sufficient justification — the cost must be disproportionate to the benefit, with the benefit to disabled users carefully estimated.

The private-sector parallel under the Equality Act 2010 is the reasonableness test embedded in the s.20 duty. The factors relevant to reasonableness include: the practicability of the adjustment; the financial and other costs and the extent of disruption; the financial and other resources available to the service provider; the availability of financial or other assistance; the nature of the activity; and the size of the service provider’s undertaking (per the EHRC Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations, 2011).

Case Law

UK accessibility case law principally concerns physical-access cases, but the digital position is increasingly relevant.

  • Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v Allen [2009] EWCA Civ 1213 — Court of Appeal held that RBS’s failure to provide accessible ATMs (cash machines) at certain branches breached the predecessor duty in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (now EA 2010 s.20). The case is foundational for the anticipatory nature of the duty and the principle that the cost of adjustment must be assessed against the broader service offering, not the marginal cost of a single transaction.
  • FirstGroup plc v Paulley [2017] UKSC 4 — Supreme Court — wheelchair user denied priority access to wheelchair space on a bus; bus operator’s policy of “first come first served” with mere request to vacate did not satisfy the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Establishes that reasonable adjustments may require modification of operational practices, not merely physical features.
  • Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme [2018] UKSC 65 — Supreme Court on s.15 unfavourable-treatment-arising-in-consequence-of-disability. Disability discrimination available even where the unfavourable treatment is a benefit policy that adversely affects disabled employees.
  • Specifically digital matters tend to settle. Several reported settlements in 2018-2024 — RNIB-supported actions against major retailers and travel sites — turned on inaccessible checkout flows, missing alt text, and ARIA-misuse breaching the s.20 duty. The pattern is similar to US ADA Title III digital-access case law (Domino’s, Winn-Dixie) although the UK substantive standard is the s.20 EA 2010 duty rather than ADA Title III.

Sample Accessibility Statement (Voluntary Private-Sector)

A compliant voluntary statement might be structured as follows:

Accessibility statement for [SERVICE NAME]

This accessibility statement applies to [scope - URL or app identifier].

[OPERATOR LEGAL NAME] is committed to making [SERVICE] accessible, in
accordance with the Equality Act 2010 duty to make reasonable adjustments.

Conformance status

We aim to conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 at
Level AA, with reference to BS EN 301 549. [SERVICE] is currently
[fully compliant / partially compliant / not compliant] with this standard.

Non-accessible content

The following content is known not to be accessible:
- [List specific criteria and locations]

We are working to address these issues. Estimated date of remediation:
[date].

Disproportionate burden

[Where applicable — itemised explanation of any content excluded on
disproportionate-burden grounds, with the underlying assessment.]

Feedback

If you have difficulty accessing any part of [SERVICE], please contact
us at [email address]. We aim to respond within [N] working days and to
provide the information you need in a format that works for you.

Enforcement

If you are not satisfied with our response, you can contact the Equality
Advisory and Support Service (EASS) at www.equalityadvisoryservice.com.

Technical specifications

[SERVICE] relies on the following technologies for compliance with
WCAG 2.2 AA:
- HTML
- WAI-ARIA
- CSS
- JavaScript

Preparation of this statement

This statement was prepared on [date]. It was last reviewed on [date].
Conformance was assessed by [self-assessment / third-party audit by
[NAME] / user testing with disabled users] using [methodology].

Operational Practices

Compliance is operational, not merely documentary. The standard practices that support a defensible accessibility posture include:

  • Design-system component-level conformance. Accessible components in the design system (focus management, keyboard navigation, ARIA roles, colour contrast) feed every product surface.
  • Automated testing. Continuous-integration accessibility scans using axe-core, Lighthouse, Pa11y, or similar — useful for catching regressions but not sufficient alone (automated tooling catches at most 30-40% of WCAG violations).
  • Manual testing. Keyboard-only navigation, screen-reader testing (NVDA + JAWS on Windows, VoiceOver on macOS and iOS, TalkBack on Android), reduced-motion preferences, high-contrast mode, browser zoom up to 200%.
  • User testing with disabled users. Recruited through disability organisations or specialist accessibility consultancies. The most reliable evidence of real-world conformance.
  • Periodic third-party audit. Annual or biennial professional audit, with findings tracked through remediation.
  • Procurement. Vendor-accessibility requirements in procurement contracts; Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs) and BS EN 301 549 conformance declarations for major third-party components.
  • Accessibility statement update cycle. Annual review at minimum, with mid-cycle updates on material changes or remediation milestones.

Bibliography

Cross-references

Disclaimer: Handbook content is informational, not legal advice. The accessibility standard is evolving — WCAG 2.2 is the current W3C Recommendation, BS EN 301 549 is in revision to incorporate it, and PSBAR 2018 has not been formally amended at the date of last verification. Consult a solicitor admitted in England and Wales or an accessibility specialist for binding decisions on your conformance posture. Last verified 2026-05-11.