Accessibility statement

Last updated 9 September 2026

This site was rebuilt in 2026 with accessibility treated as part of the build rather than a box to tick afterwards. This statement says what we did, what we know is imperfect, and how to tell us when we have got something wrong.

What we are aiming at

Our target is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2, level AA. We believe the site substantially meets that standard. It has not been independently audited, so we describe this as our own assessment rather than a certified conformance claim.

What we have done

• Real HTML structure. One h1 per page, headings in order, landmark elements for the navigation, main content and footer, and lists marked up as lists so screen readers can skim them.
• Keyboard operation. Everything that can be clicked can be reached and operated from the keyboard, in a sensible order, with a visible focus outline that meets the contrast requirement. A "skip to content" link is the first thing you reach.
• Measured colour contrast. Every text and background pair on the site was calculated against the AA thresholds rather than eyeballed. Where a colour failed — including our own brand teal used for small text and for the main button — we darkened it until it passed, instead of leaving it and hoping.
• Motion. The only movement is a small lift on hover. If your system is set to reduce motion, all animation and smooth scrolling is switched off.
• Text and zoom. Text is sized in relative units, so browser text sizing and page zoom to 200% work without content being cut off or overlapping.
• Forms. Every field has a real, permanently visible label, an appropriate autocomplete hint, and an error message in words rather than a red outline on its own.
• Images. Client logos carry alternative text naming the organisation. The decorative code illustration in the page header is hidden from screen readers, so it is not read out as a wall of syntax.
• The cookie question. It is a banner at the foot of the page, not a modal that blocks the site. It does not trap keyboard focus, you can ignore it and keep reading, and "No thanks" is the same size and weight as "Allow analytics".
• No traps. No carousel, no auto-playing media, no auto-advancing content, no time limits, and no scrolling logo marquee — we considered one and rejected it partly for this reason.

Known limitations

We would rather list these than pretend they are not there:

• The site has not been tested by an independent accessibility auditor, and has not been tested with every combination of screen reader and browser. Our testing has been on desktop browsers with keyboard navigation and programmatic contrast checking.
• Layout on small screens is built on a responsive grid and tested at emulated widths. Testing on a range of physical handsets is not yet complete.
• Several client logos are supplied artwork containing text as part of the image. That text cannot reflow or resize independently, and the organisation's name is given in the alternative text and in the caption beneath it.
• Our typefaces are loaded from Google Fonts. If that request fails or is blocked, the page falls back to your system fonts, which changes the look but not the content.
• Older pages carried over from the previous version of the site have not all been rebuilt to this standard yet.

Telling us about a problem

If any part of this site stops you doing what you came to do, please tell us. Call 0333 800 1881, Monday to Friday, 9am to 4pm, or use the enquiry form. We aim to reply within five working days.

If you need something from this site in another format — large print, plain text, or read to you over the phone — ask and we will provide it. There is no charge.

How this statement was prepared

Self-assessed on 9 September 2026 by the team that built the site, using manual keyboard and structural review together with programmatic colour-contrast measurement of every foreground and background pair in the stylesheet. This statement will be reviewed whenever the site changes materially.