Accessibility Statement

This accessibility statement applies to https://mend.eco/ ("the website").

How you should be able to use this website

We want as many people as possible to be able to use this website.

You should be able to:

  • Change colours, contrast levels and fonts using browser or device settings
  • Zoom in up to 400% without the text spilling off the screen
  • Navigate most of the website using a keyboard or speech recognition software
  • Listen to most of the website using a screen reader

We also make the website text as simple as possible to understand.

AbilityNet has advice on making your device easier to use if you have a disability.

How accessible this website is

Parts of this website are not fully accessible. For example:

  • Some uploads are not written in plain English
  • Some tables do not have row or column headers
  • Some documents have poor colour contrast
  • Some images do not have image descriptions
  • Some images used to convey information have poor colour contrast 
  • Some information in tables cannot be reached with a keyboard
  • Many documents are in PDF/CSV format and are not accessible

Reporting accessibility problems with this website

If you find any problems that are not listed on this page or you think we’re not meeting the accessibility requirements, contact us

Technical information about this website’s accessibility

As a publicly funded resource we are committed to making our website accessible.

Compliance status

This website is partially compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.2 AA standard, due to the non-compliances and exemptions listed below.

Non-accessible content

The content listed below is non-accessible for the following reasons.

Non-compliance with the accessibility regulations

  1. Images on some pages do not always have suitable image descriptions. Users of assistive technologies may not have access to information conveyed in images. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.1.1 (Non-text Content).
  2. Some tables do not have table row or column headers. This means assistive technologies will not read the tables correctly. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships).
  3. Some tables are structured incorrectly, so screen readers cannot understand the relationships between information in the table. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships).
  4. Some headings do not display correctly. They may look like normal text or a different type of heading. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships).
  5. Some images use colour as the only way to convey meaning. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.1 (Use of Color).
  6. Some images include text with poor colour contrast to its background. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.3 (Contrast (Minimum)).
  7. Some pages use images of text instead of text. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.5 (Images of Text).
  8. Some images include elements with poor colour contrast to the background. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.11 (Non-text Contrast).
  9. If a table is too wide to fit on the screen, the hidden information cannot be reached with a keyboard. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.1.1 (Keyboard).
  10. On some pages, skip to main content links don’t skip straight to the main content. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.1 (Bypass Blocks).
  11. Some pages have duplicate titles. This may make it difficult for users to orient themselves and find the right content. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.2 (Page Titled).
  12. Some headings don’t accurately describe the content underneath. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.6 (Headings and Labels).
  13. The text on some buttons doesn’t accurately describe what the button does. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.6 (Headings and Labels).
  14. On some pages the back to top link at the bottom of the page can hide focussed elements. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.11 (Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)).
  15. Some images of text that are used as links have image descriptions that don’t include all of the text. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.5.3 (Label in Name).
  16. The change in the default written language is not correctly identified on some pages. This means screen readers will not read content correctly. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 3.1.2 (Language of Parts).
  17. Some pages have inconsistently-placed language navigation. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 3.2.3 (Consistent Navigation).
  18. Translation Navigation is inconsistently named. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 3.2.4 (Consistent Identification).
  19. Some links that reveal more content can cause some screen reader users to lose their position on the page. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value).
  20. The feedback buttons at the bottom of each page behave in an unexpected way that could be confusing for screen reader users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value).

Many documents are in non-HTML formats, for example PDF. They are not accessible in a number of ways including missing text alternatives and missing document structure.

Preparation of this accessibility statement

This statement was prepared on 23 June 2025. It was last reviewed on 23 June 2025.

This website was last tested in June 2025 against the WCAG 2.2 AA standard. This test of a representative sample of pages was carried out by the Digital Accessibility Centre (DAC) (gov department/Logic Software).

We also used findings from our own testing when preparing this accessibility statement.