EHRC Investigations of Websites: When and How They Trigger

The EHRC is not an ombudsman that handles individual complaints. It is a strategic enforcement body with significant legal powers under the Equality Act 2006. Most UK businesses dealing with an individual accessibility complaint will never encounter the EHRC. But for organisations with systemic inaccessibility issues or those in sectors the EHRC has identified as priorities, the investigation powers are significant and the outcomes can be legally binding.

If you want to understand your current accessibility position before any regulatory contact, run a free scan at /uk/en/scan.

The EHRC's powers under the Equality Act 2006

The EHRC's enforcement powers derive from the Equality Act 2006, which established the Commission and set out its functions. These are separate from the Equality Act 2010, which defines the substantive rights. The 2006 Act gives the EHRC the tools to enforce the 2010 Act.

Section 20 of the Equality Act 2006 permits the EHRC to conduct a formal investigation into any named organisation where it has reason to believe that the organisation has committed an unlawful act. The EHRC must give notice of the investigation and allow the organisation to make representations.

A formal investigation is a structured legal process: the EHRC issues terms of reference, gathers evidence, reviews documents, may interview individuals and produces a report with findings. The investigation can take months or years depending on complexity.

Section 21 of the Equality Act 2006 permits the EHRC to issue an unlawful-act notice where a formal investigation concludes that unlawful acts have occurred. The notice requires the named organisation to produce an action plan for eliminating the unlawful acts within a specified period.

Section 24 permits the EHRC to apply to court for an injunction if an organisation is likely to commit an unlawful act, or has committed one and is likely to repeat it, without needing to complete a full formal investigation first.

What triggers an EHRC investigation

The EHRC publishes its strategic enforcement priorities and the criteria it uses to select cases. The factors that make an accessibility investigation more likely include the following.

Scale of impact: an organisation that provides a service used by a large number of disabled people, and whose inaccessibility affects a significant proportion of them, is more attractive to the EHRC than a very small local business. The EHRC looks for cases where its action will create broad impact.

Pattern of complaints: multiple complaints from different disabled users about the same organisation, whether received directly or through disability rights organisations, signal systemic rather than isolated failure. The EHRC monitors its own correspondence and is aware of patterns.

Prior engagement: an organisation that has been contacted informally about accessibility issues and has not responded or has been dismissive is at higher risk of formal investigation. The EHRC typically seeks voluntary compliance before escalating.

Sector-wide programmes: the EHRC periodically runs sector-specific enforcement campaigns, identifying areas where the same failure pattern appears across multiple organisations. A business in a sector the EHRC is currently reviewing is at higher risk of being swept into a programme investigation.

Media profile: public reporting on named organisations' accessibility barriers by disability rights media, mainstream press or advocacy groups has in several cases preceded EHRC contact. The EHRC monitors media coverage and research publications relating to equality, and media reporting can contribute to triggering a review of a named organisation or sector.

Section 21 unlawful-act notices: what they require

An unlawful-act notice requires the named organisation to take specified steps within specified timeframes. The notice identifies the unlawful acts found and sets out what the organisation must do to eliminate them.

The organisation's response is an action plan, submitted to the EHRC, setting out the specific changes it will make, the timeline for making them and the person responsible for each item. The EHRC reviews the plan and may accept it, require revisions or reject it.

If the organisation fails to comply with the agreed action plan, the EHRC can apply to the county court under section 21(6) for an injunction requiring compliance. An injunction is a court order enforceable by contempt of court proceedings, which can include fines or imprisonment for individuals in breach.

Unlawful-act notices are public. They are published on the EHRC's enforcement pages and form part of the organisation's public record. For businesses with public-facing reputations, the publication of a notice is often more significant than its legal content.

How to respond if the EHRC contacts you

The EHRC's initial contact with an organisation is rarely a formal investigation notice. More commonly, it is a letter or phone call exploring whether the organisation is willing to engage voluntarily before escalation.

At this preliminary stage, the appropriate response is to engage promptly and professionally, acknowledge the concern raised, provide factual information about your current accessibility position and the steps you are taking, and commit to specific improvements with realistic timelines. The EHRC is considerably more likely to pursue formal proceedings against organisations that do not respond, or that respond dismissively, than those that engage constructively and demonstrate a commitment to improvement.

If the EHRC opens a formal investigation under section 20, legal advice from a solicitor with equality-law experience is appropriate. The investigation will involve document requests, potentially interviews, and formal written submissions. Responses must be accurate and consistent.

If an unlawful-act notice is proposed following a formal investigation, organisations should note that, the right to make representations under section 21(3) exists before the notice is finalised, and this is the stage where the scope and timeline are most effectively shaped by the organisation's input. This is the stage at which the scope of the required action plan and the timeline for compliance are most effectively influenced.

How EHRC investigations differ from individual county court claims

A county court claim under the Equality Act 2010 requires a named claimant who has personally experienced discrimination. The claimant must demonstrate that they are a disabled person, that the inaccessibility put them at a substantial disadvantage, and that the respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment.

An EHRC investigation under the Equality Act 2006 has no such requirement. The EHRC does not need to identify a specific victim. It acts in the public interest where it has reason to believe unlawful acts have occurred or are occurring. This means that an organisation's website could be the subject of an EHRC investigation even if no individual has yet brought a civil claim.

The practical consequence is that the two enforcement routes are additive, not alternative. A business could face an individual county court claim from a specific disabled user and, separately, an EHRC investigation arising from the same or related inaccessibility. The individual claim resolves the claimant's personal damages. The EHRC investigation addresses the systemic practice.

Informal resolution and the EHRC's preferred approach

The EHRC has consistently stated that formal investigations are a last resort. Its enforcement framework describes a preference for informal engagement and voluntary compliance first.

In practice this means the EHRC often contacts organisations by letter before opening a formal investigation, explaining its concerns, outlining the relevant statutory provisions and requesting a response describing what the organisation is doing or will do to address the issue. An organisation that responds with a credible, time-bound remediation plan typically moves to an agreement under section 23 of the Equality Act 2006 rather than a formal investigation.

A section 23 agreement is a legally binding undertaking accepted by the EHRC in lieu of proceeding further. The agreement is typically published on the EHRC website, so it does involve public disclosure, but without the formal unlawful-act finding that a section 21 notice carries. It sets out the steps the organisation will take and the timeline. Unlike an unlawful-act notice, a section 23 agreement does not involve a formal finding that unlawful acts occurred. This is a significant distinction for organisations concerned about the reputational impact of a formal investigation outcome.

The EHRC also has power under section 28 of the Equality Act 2006 to seek judicial review of public-authority decisions relating to equality. For private-sector website accessibility, the more relevant powers are sections 20, 21, 23 and 24.

The Northern Ireland distinction

The EHRC operates in England, Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) performs the equivalent function and enforces the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which continues to apply in Northern Ireland. The EA 2010 does not extend to Northern Ireland. Businesses with operations or customers in Northern Ireland should be aware that the enforcement body and the applicable statute differ from Great Britain. DDA 1995 claims in Northern Ireland go to county courts or the Fair Employment Tribunal depending on the context, and the ECNI rather than EHRC handles formal enforcement.

For how Equality Act damages work in individual civil claims, see Equality Act damages and Vento bands explained. For what the Equality Act actually requires of websites, see website accessibility under the Equality Act 2010.

---

This is technical analysis, not legal advice. Consult a solicitor for specific guidance on EHRC engagement and equality law compliance.