Equality Act Damages: How Vento Bands Set the Range for UK Accessibility Claims

When people ask what the "fine" is for an inaccessible website under UK law, the framing already contains a misunderstanding. The Equality Act 2010 does not work through regulatory fines. There is no Equality Act equivalent of the ICO's monetary penalty notices or the EU EAA's administrative sanctions. What the Equality Act provides is a civil remedy: a disabled claimant who has been discriminated against can bring a claim in the county court and receive damages.

For a technical audit of your site's accessibility, run a free scan at /uk/en/scan before a claimant does it manually.

The structure of Equality Act damages

Under section 119 of the Equality Act 2010, a county court that finds unlawful discrimination in services can award three categories of remedy.

Injury to feelings compensates for the distress, humiliation and frustration caused by being discriminated against. This is the central head of damages in most accessibility claims. It is calibrated to the Vento bands.

Actual financial loss compensates for any money the claimant lost as a direct result of the discrimination. In an accessibility context, this might include the cost of using an alternative service, time costs in finding and using that alternative, transport costs to visit a physical location instead of using the inaccessible website, or charges incurred because an online-only discount was not accessible.

Aggravated damages are available where the respondent's conduct was particularly high-handed, malicious, or involved a dismissive response to the complaint. In practice, these are awarded where the organisation continued to discriminate after becoming aware of the issue, or where it behaved dismissively to the claimant's initial contact.

The court can also make a declaration that the respondent has unlawfully discriminated and issue an injunction requiring specific remediation steps, though injunctions are more common in employment cases.

Vento bands explained

The Vento bands originate from Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2002] EWCA Civ 1871, in which the Court of Appeal established three bands for injury to feelings awards in discrimination cases. The bands apply to employment tribunal claims but are applied by analogy in county court service-provision cases.

Presidential Guidance on the bands is updated annually and published at judiciary.uk. For 2025/2026 the approximate figures are:

Lower band: approximately £1,200 to £11,700. These are less serious cases, including isolated incidents with limited impact. An accessibility complaint about a single barrier on a website would typically fall here unless there were aggravating factors.

Middle band: approximately £11,700 to £35,200. Serious cases but not the most grave. A sustained period of inaccessibility, or a case where the barrier prevented significant use of important services, might fall here.

Upper band: approximately £35,200 to £58,700. Serious, prolonged and exceptional cases, including deliberate or especially damaging discrimination.

Cases of exceptional gravity can exceed the upper band. Verify the current Presidential Guidance figures before relying on these numbers, as the bands are adjusted annually, typically in April. The Vento guidance is titled Presidential Guidance on Employment Tribunals: Vento Bands and can be found in the Resources section of the judiciary.uk website. County courts apply the same bands by analogy in service-provision claims under the Equality Act 2010.

The Judicial College Guidelines for General Damages in Personal Injury Cases, also published at judiciary.uk, are occasionally referenced in accessibility claims involving consequential personal injury from the stress of inaccessibility, but this is rare.

Typical award ranges in accessibility claims

Published county court judgments in EA 2010 accessibility claims are sparse because the large majority of cases settle before judgment. From the cases that have produced public decisions and settlement disclosures, the pattern is that simple, single-barrier claims against SMB service providers tend to settle in the lower Vento band range, between £1,500 and £8,000 for injury to feelings, plus any actual financial losses.

Claims involving sustained inaccessibility, a claimant with significant dependence on the service, or dismissive responses from the respondent move into the middle band. Claims involving large organisations with documented awareness of the issues are more likely to attract higher awards.

The practical implication is that the financial exposure from a single accessibility claim at SMB level is most commonly in the range of £2,000 to £15,000 including costs, before considering the claimant's legal costs if the case is lost. These amounts are in a range that most businesses would prefer to resolve through remediation and settlement rather than litigation.

Why most cases settle

The settlement dynamic in Equality Act accessibility claims reflects several factors.

For claimants, bringing a county court claim requires instructing a solicitor, paying a court fee and managing a litigation process that may take 12 to 18 months to reach judgment. Disability rights solicitors often take these cases on conditional fee arrangements, but the process is still demanding on the claimant.

For respondents, the risk of adverse publicity is often more significant than the damages exposure. Media coverage of a disability discrimination claim against a business is reputationally damaging regardless of the outcome. Settling quickly, fixing the website and making a goodwill payment avoids both the publicity and the ongoing legal costs of contested litigation.

Most accessibility-related EA 2010 disputes follow a pattern: disabled user contacts the business, explains they cannot use the website, is given an inadequate or dismissive response, instructs a solicitor, pre-action letter is sent, business fixes the site and pays a settlement. The litigation itself is rarely necessary for either party to reach this outcome, though the credible threat of it is what drives resolution.

How this compares to EU EAA enforcement

Under the EU Accessibility Act, national regulators in EU member states can impose administrative fines directly on non-compliant organisations. France, Germany and the Netherlands have all set fine bands in national legislation implementing the Directive. These are regulatory penalties, not civil damages, and can be imposed without a disabled individual claimant.

The UK Equality Act 2010 has no administrative penalty mechanism. The EHRC can bring enforcement action and seek court orders under the Equality Act 2006, but it does so strategically for systemic failures rather than routinely fining individual businesses. For individual claims, a claimant is required.

This structural difference means that UK website accessibility enforcement is more dependent on individual disabled users having the knowledge, resources and determination to bring claims. UK businesses face lower probability of regulator-initiated enforcement than their EU counterparts subject to the EAA, but the individual claim risk is real and the reputational consequences are identical.

What happens when an EHRC investigation follows

Individual claims are the most common enforcement route, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission has separate powers under the Equality Act 2006 to conduct formal investigations and issue unlawful-act notices. An EHRC investigation does not require a single claimant. The EHRC can act where it has reason to believe an organisation has committed unlawful acts affecting multiple people.

For website accessibility, an EHRC investigation is most likely where a pattern of complaints exists against a large organisation, or where the EHRC has identified a sector where inaccessibility is widespread and is running a strategic enforcement campaign. The EHRC's current enforcement priorities are published on its website and are updated periodically.

An unlawful-act notice under section 21 of the Equality Act 2006 requires the organisation to submit an action plan for eliminating the unlawful practice. The notice can be enforced in court if the organisation fails to comply. The EHRC can also accept binding agreements in lieu of formal proceedings, which function similarly to the ICO's undertakings.

The combination of individual claim risk and EHRC investigation risk creates a compound enforcement picture. A business that receives an individual accessibility complaint and fails to act on it has elevated its risk on both dimensions: the claimant has a stronger case and the EHRC has more reason to be interested.

The anticipatory duty and why documented audits matter

One feature of the Equality Act that distinguishes it from purely complaint-driven regimes is the anticipatory duty under section 20. Because the obligation to make reasonable adjustments arises before any individual has complained, a court can find a breach even where no disabled user has yet brought a claim.

This means the relevant question is not "has anyone complained?" but "what adjustments would a reasonable organisation in your position have made?" Documented accessibility audits, remediation plans and evidence that the organisation has been progressively improving its accessibility all go towards demonstrating that reasonable steps were taken. An organisation with no accessibility audit history, no remediation record and no accessibility statement is in a weaker evidential position than one that has made documented, ongoing efforts, even if the website is not yet fully compliant.

For how accessibility statements fit into this picture, see accessibility statement template for UK businesses. For the EHRC investigation process in more detail, see EHRC investigations of websites.

For how the Equality Act 2010 applies to private websites generally, see website accessibility under the Equality Act 2010.

---

This is technical analysis, not legal advice. Consult a solicitor for specific guidance on Equality Act claims and damages.