Accessibility statement

How to tell us about a problem#

Email qualityassurance@cambridgecredit.org. We will reply within 3 business days.

It helps to know which page you were on, what you were trying to do, and the device, browser or assistive technology you were using. Please do not put account numbers or your Social Security number in the email.

If you would rather talk to someone, call a counselor on the number at the top of this page. Cambridge’s other contact details are on the contact page.

The standard we aim for#

We aim to meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 at Level AA, published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

This site partially conforms to that standard. The parts we know do not yet meet it are listed below, and no one outside our team has audited it.

How the site is checked#

We test the site with automated checks, most of which run in a real web browser. On 7 October 2026 they found:

• axe-core, a widely used automated checker, tested 268 pages at desktop width (1280 pixels) against WCAG 2.2 Levels A and AA. It found no failures.
• The same checker tested a sample of 13 pages at a phone width of 375 pixels and found no failures.
• In a test run, two faults were planted in the home page: an image with no text alternative and a button with no name. The checker reported both.
• One page of each kind (14 pages) was checked on a screen 320 pixels wide and with text enlarged to 200 per cent. Each was also checked with wider spacing between lines and letters. Nothing needed sideways scrolling at 320 pixels, and nothing was cut off.
• Five kinds of page were tested with the keyboard alone, including the enquiry form and a calculator. On each, the first press of Tab reached a “Skip to main content” link. Focus then moved through the page in order without getting stuck. The first question of the enquiry form could be answered with the keyboard, and the form moved on to its second step. Its later steps were not tested this way.
• On one page of each of eight kinds, we read what the browser hands to a screen reader. Every control had a name, the main regions of the page were marked, and no heading level was skipped.
• On four pages, including the enquiry form and a calculator, no CSS animation ran on its own except the strip described below. Its pause button stopped it, pressing the button again started it, and with the device set to reduce motion none ran at all.
• The outline that shows which control has keyboard focus was measured on 12 controls on 4 pages, each at desktop and at phone width. In all 24 measurements its contrast with the colours around it was at least 3 to 1.
• All 28 colour pairings the site’s design allows, for text, links, borders and the focus outline, meet their contrast minimums. The lowest is 3.43 to 1, for the border of a form control against the page.

Automated checks find many problems but not all of them. They cannot tell whether a page makes sense read aloud, or whether captions match what is said.

Other things to know#

• One strip near the top of each page moves on its own. It has a pause button, and it does not move at all if your device is set to reduce motion.
• The information pages are sent as complete pages, so they can be read with scripts turned off. The main enquiry form and the calculators need JavaScript.
• This site’s own pages do not use an accessibility overlay or widget.

What does not yet work well#

• Videos. The videos on this site play in YouTube’s player. Their captions have not yet been checked against what is said, so they may contain mistakes. The video player’s own controls are YouTube’s.
• Testing by people. No one using a screen reader, or using a keyboard alone, has yet tested the whole site. Automated checks cannot replace that.
• No outside audit. The checks described here are our own. No independent accessibility auditor has reviewed the site.
• Pages on Cambridge’s other systems. Some links lead to pages run on Cambridge’s other systems, such as the payment pages and the client sign-in pages. This statement and our checks do not cover them.

About this statement#

This statement was first written on 26 August 2026 and brought up to date with the results above on 7 October 2026. We will update it as the items above are fixed.