The Accessibility Statement That Protects You, and the One That Doesn't

The statement that made things worse

A dental practice published an accessibility statement with a single sentence: "This website is fully compliant with WCAG 2.1 AA."

It wasn't. The booking form had unlabelled fields, the contrast on the grey body text failed, and the online form couldn't be completed with a keyboard.

When a complaint arrived, that sentence was the first thing quoted. A claim of full compliance is a statement of fact, and a statement of fact that is demonstrably untrue is considerably worse than having published nothing at all.

The practice would have been in a stronger position with a plain, honest page that said what it had fixed and what it hadn't.

What an accessibility statement is for

Two audiences, and the statement serves both with the same document.

A visitor who hit a barrier needs to know how to get what they came for. That's the real purpose, and it's the part most statements omit entirely.

Anyone assessing the business, from a procurement officer to a complainant's solicitor, needs to see that accessibility has been considered deliberately, that known issues are documented, and that there's a route to raise a problem.

Neither audience wants a badge. Both are unimpressed by a claim of perfection.

What the generated ones get wrong

Overlay vendors generate statements automatically, and the pattern is consistent: a claim of conformance, a date, a contact form, and a link to the vendor.

Four problems with that:

The claim is false. The tool covers a narrow set of presentation changes; it cannot make the site conform. Claiming otherwise is the exact conduct the US FTC settled with a major vendor over in January 2025.

There's no list of known issues, which is the one section that demonstrates good faith.

The contact route often goes to the vendor, not to someone who can fix anything.

The date is the install date, not the date anything was last reviewed.

Before and after the same page. The statement describes this difference honestly, rather than claiming the fix already happened.

The seven sections that make a statement work

1. A plain commitment, with a standard named

"We aim to meet WCAG 2.2 Level AA." Not "we are compliant". Aim is a statement about intent, and intent is what you can honestly attest to.

If you've had an audit, say when and against what.

2. What you've done

Specific, and short. "We rebuilt the booking form with proper labels and keyboard support in March. We increased text contrast across the site. We added captions to our three videos."

Specific measures are credible. "We take accessibility seriously" is not.

3. What is not yet accessible

The section everyone deletes and should keep.

"Our price list PDF is not yet tagged for screen readers. We can provide it as an accessible web page on request, usually within one working day."

A named limitation with a workaround is the difference between a business managing a known issue and a business making claims it can't support.

4. The alternative route, which is the point

For every known barrier, the fastest way to get the thing done: a phone number, an email address, a person's name. Answered by a human, within a stated time.

"Call 01234 567890 and ask for Sam, Monday to Friday, 9 to 5. We can read the price list over the phone or send it as a plain text page."

This is the section that actually serves a disabled visitor, and it's the one automated statements never include.

5. How to tell you about a problem

An email address and a phone number, monitored, with a commitment to respond. Not a form that generates a ticket nobody reads.

Include a fallback for people who can't use the form.

6. Which assistive technology you've tested with

Honest and specific: "Tested with NVDA and Firefox on Windows, and VoiceOver on iOS, in October 2026." This signals a real testing process, and it sets expectations about what you can support.

If you haven't tested with a screen reader, don't claim to have.

7. The date and who owns it

Published date, last reviewed date, and a named role responsible. A statement with no review date is a statement nobody maintains.

Where to publish it

A page linked from the footer of every page, in the same position throughout, and linked from your contact page. Name it "Accessibility" rather than burying it in the terms.

Publishing it isn't just good practice: WCAG 2.2's 3.2.6 (Consistent Help) expects help mechanisms such as contact routes to appear in the same relative place across pages, and a consistent footer link is the simplest way to satisfy it.

The mistake of publishing before fixing

An honest statement published alongside real fixes is a strength. An honest statement published instead of fixes is evidence.

If your statement says the booking form has unlabelled fields and you haven't started fixing them, you've documented a known failure with a date on it. That may still be better than silence, but only if the fix is genuinely in progress.

The order that works: audit, fix the things that block the main flow, write the statement with what remains, then keep fixing on a schedule.

What not to do

• Claim full conformance. You cannot verify it, and it's the claim that gets quoted back at you.
• Use a generated badge from a widget vendor. It's their product claim, not your assessment.
• Point the contact route at the vendor. Complaints need to reach the business.
• Copy another company's statement. The known issues and contact details are the parts that matter, and both will be wrong.
• Let it go stale. A statement dated three years ago, on a site rebuilt since, is misleading by omission.
• Use it as a replacement for an audit. A statement describes your position; an audit establishes it.

A short version that works

If you need something live this week, this is honest and sufficient:

Accessibility We want everyone to be able to use this website and we're working towards WCAG 2.2 Level AA.

What we've done: added labels to all form fields, increased text contrast, and added a keyboard-accessible menu. What we know isn't right yet: our price list is a PDF and isn't screen-reader friendly. Call us and we'll read it to you or email a plain-text version. Tell us about a problem: [email] or [phone], Monday to Friday 9 to 5. We aim to reply within two working days. Last reviewed: 2 November 2026.

Four short paragraphs. It commits to nothing it can't evidence, it gives a disabled visitor a route that works today, and it survives being read out in a complaint.

Where to start

Run your own site with a keyboard for ten minutes, note what breaks, and write the statement from what you found. Then fix the first thing on the list.

A free digital presence audit on Webcheckhub covers accessibility basics within website health, which gives you the list of known issues a statement should name. When you want the audit documented and the remediation done properly, Solutions Elites handles accessibility work for small businesses.