Accessibility statement for the Trade Remedies Service

This accessibility statement applies to Trade Remedies Service (TRS).

This service is run by the Trade Remedies Authority. It is designed to be used by as many people as possible. The text should be clear and simple to understand.

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 (including the most recent versions of JAWS, NVDA and VoiceOver)

We’ve also made 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

We know some parts of this website are not fully accessible:

  • some interactive elements lack clear labels or instructions
  • certain form fields are missing programmatic labels or have incorrect associations
  • some content is only conveyed through colour, which may not be perceivable to all users
  • there are components with insufficient contrast, including non-text elements
  • some headings and page titles are not descriptive or structured correctly
  • focus indicators are missing or unclear on some interactive elements
  • some custom components (for example, star ratings, colour selectors and drag-and-drop elements) are not fully operable with assistive technologies
  • error messages are not always clearly associated with form fields
  • some links are empty or do not clearly describe their purpose
  • hidden content is not always properly managed for screen readers
  • timeout features may not be adjustable or extendable by users

Feedback and contact information

If you find any problems not listed on this page or think we’re not meeting accessibility requirements, contact: contact@traderemedies.gov.uk

If you need information on this website in a different format like accessible PDF, large print, easy read, audio recording or braille:

We’ll consider your request and get back to you in 5 days.

Enforcement procedure

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is responsible for enforcing the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 (the 'accessibility regulations'). If you're not happy with how we respond to your complaint, contact the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS).

A replacement service is currently being developed to meet the WCAG 2.2 standard and will be launched in 2025. The non-compliance issues identified under WCAG 2.1 will be addressed with the new service. Conducting a WCAG 2.2 assessment on the current version of the Trade Remedies Service will not be undertaken as it would constitute a disproportionate burden.

Technical information about this service’s accessibility

The Trade Remedies Authority is committed to making this service accessible, in accordance with the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018.

Compliance status

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

Non-accessible content

This accessibility statement is intended for the public-facing Trade Remedies Service. Some of the non-compliances listed below were identified during an audit of both public-facing and internal (caseworker and investigator) journeys. Not all non-compliances apply to the public site – some relate solely to the internal systems that are not accessed by the public.

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

Non compliance with the accessibility regulations

  1. Information, structure and relationships conveyed through presentation could not be programmatically determined or was not available in text. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships).
  2. Heading structure was not properly conveyed within the markup for screen reader users to understand the page layout. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships).
  3. The states of interactive elements could not be programmatically determined despite being conveyed visibly. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships) and 4.1.2 (name, role, value).
  4. Password instructions were not properly conveyed to screen reader users, including updates to the content. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.1.1 (non-text content), 1.3.1 (info and relationships) and 4.1.3 (status messages).
  5. The name, role, value or state of interactive elements was not conveyed programmatically for assistive technology users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 4.1.2 (name, role, value).
  6. The star rating component was not implemented accessibly, which could impact several user groups. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships), 1.4.1 (use of colour) and 4.1.2 (name, role, value).
  7. Interactive elements did not have sufficient persistent labels or instructions. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 3.3.2 (labels or instructions).
  8. Non-text content did not have sufficient or appropriate textual alternatives for screen reader users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.1.1 (non-text content).
  9. File upload components were not labelled properly for screen reader and voice activation users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships), 2.5.3 (label in name), 2.4.4 (link purpose – in context), 2.4.6 (headings and labels) and 2.4.9 (link purpose – link only).
  10. Input errors were not identified in-text, meaning it could be difficult for some users to resolve them. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 3.3.1 (error identification).
  11. Pages did not have sufficiently unique and descriptive titles to describe their purpose to screen reader users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.2 (page titled).
  12. Form elements were not labelled accessibly for some user groups, particularly those using assistive technologies. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships), 3.3.2 (labels or instructions) and 2.4.6 (headings and labels).
  13. Interactive elements had no accessible names for assistive technology users, despite being labelled visibly. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships), 2.5.3 (label in name) and 4.1.2 (name, role, value).
  14. Content was available to keyboard and screen reader users when intended to be hidden. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships) and 2.4.3 (focus order).
  15. Colour was relied on to convey meaning, meaning users with vision impairments may not have access to this information. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships) and 1.4.1 (use of colour).
  16. Links contained no text to describe their purpose for screen reader users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.4 (link purpose – in context), 4.1.2 (name, role, value) and 2.4.9 (link purpose – link only).
  17. Custom text fields were not marked up accessibly for screen reader and voice activation users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships) and 4.1.2 (name, role, value).
  18. Colour was relied on to convey information or states visibly, which may not be accessible to low vision and colour-blind users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.1 (use of color).
  19. Links were not sufficiently descriptive for screen reader users within their programmatically determined link context. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.4 (link purpose – in context) and 2.4.9 (link purpose – link only).
  20. Custom interactive elements were not marked up accessibly for assistive technology users and users with mobility impairments. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships), 2.1.1 (keyboard), 4.1.2 (name, role, value), 2.5.7 (dragging movements) and 2.1.3 (keyboard – no exception).
  21. Custom colour selection components were not implemented accessibly for assistive technology users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships), 2.1.1 (keyboard), 4.1.2 (name, role, value) and 2.1.3 (keyboard – no exception).
  22. Placeholder text was relied on to convey form field purpose to users, which was not descriptive to screen reader users and not persistent for sighted users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 3.3.2 (labels or instructions) and 2.4.6 (headings and labels).
  23. Form labels were not properly marked up, meaning they were conveyed differently to sighted and non-sighted users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships) and 2.5.3 (label in name).
  24. Form fields were missing visible and programmatic labels, meaning it could be difficult for users to understand their purpose. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 3.3.2 (labels or instructions) and 4.1.2 (name, role, value).
  25. Links were not marked up accessibly for keyboard only, screen reader and voice activation users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.1 (info and relationships), 2.1.1 (keyboard), 4.1.2 (name, role, value) and 2.1.3 (keyboard – no exception).
  26. Timeout behaviour was present which users could not extend and which users were not warned of. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.2.1 (timing adjustable) and 2.2.6 (timeouts).
  27. Text did not contrast sufficiently to be readable by low vision users. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.3 (contrast – minimum) and 1.4.6 (contrast – enhanced).
  28. The purpose of input fields could not be correctly programmatically determined. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.3.5 (identify input purpose).
  29. Non-text elements required for understanding did not contrast sufficiently to be visible to users with reduced vision. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.11 (non-text contrast).
  30. Headings and labels were not sufficiently descriptive of topic or purpose. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.6 (headings and labels).
  31. Interactive elements did not have visible focus indicators for users navigating via keyboard interface. This fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.4.7 (focus visible).

Disproportionate burden

The current TRS platform is in maintenance mode and is expected to be replaced by a new system called Trade Remedies Application and Case System (TRACS), which is currently being developed. Given the short remaining lifespan of TRS and the absence of any planned updates to user-facing elements, further investment in accessibility fixes would constitute a disproportionate burden. All users of the service can currently access it without issue. However, if any future users have accessibility needs, the TRA team will work with them personally to find another way of using the service and providing them with updates so that they are not disadvantaged. The TRA’s contact details are provided in the feedback and contact information section of this statement for reporting accessibility issues or requesting support.

Preparation of this accessibility statement

This statement was prepared on 3 July 2019. It was last reviewed on 04 December 2025.

This service was last tested on 20 August 2025 against the WCAG 2.2 AA standard.

The test was carried out by the Digital Accessibility Centre (DAC).