GOV.UK

https://www.gov.uk · 58/92 checks passed · government

Compliance report (framework 0.8)

Gate passed (every Core check must pass) · not counted towards the gate: paused 35, draft 48, ready for review 54.

Site level: 0 (no scored checks yet).

By level

LevelResult
Level 1 — Basic 32/37 (2 failed)
Level 2 — Enhanced 11/27 (10 failed)
Level 3 — Advanced 0/10 (4 failed)

By category

CategoryResult
Accessibility 12/13
Accountability 1/5
AI & Automation 3/8
Interoperability 0/3
Privacy 15/16
Provenance 0/2
Security 8/11
Transparency 4/13
Responsibility to the Future 0/3

Level 1 — Basic

Accessibility

AI & Automation

Privacy

Security

Transparency

Level 2 — Enhanced

Accessibility

Accountability

FAIL Published response timeframes
  • response_timeframe: The page lists contact topics but does not publish any response timeframes for inquiries.
    Fix: Add expected response times next to each contact channel (e.g., 'we respond within 5 working days').
  • specific: Since no timeframes are published at all, there are no specific day-based commitments on the page.
    Fix: Specify concrete response windows in days or hours for each contact method rather than vague language.
FAIL Documented complaints process
  • process_exists: The page mentions a generic contact form and 'passport advice and complaints' link but does not document an overall complaints or feedback process.
    Fix: Add a dedicated complaints/feedback section on the contact page explaining how to raise a complaint about GOV.UK and its services.
  • steps_clear: No step-by-step guidance is provided for how a user should submit a complaint or what happens next.
    Fix: Publish numbered steps describing how to file a complaint, what information to include, where it goes, and what to expect in response.
FAIL Clear appeals process
  • appeals_exists: The contact page lists service contacts but does not document any appeals process for challenging decisions.
    Fix: Add a clearly labeled section or link describing how users can formally appeal decisions, including required steps and timeframes.
  • independent: No mention of an independent reviewer or escalation path is provided on the page.
    Fix: Document an independent or escalated review route (e.g., ombudsman or tribunal) with contact details and eligibility criteria.

AI & Automation

FAIL AI-assisted content clearly marked
  • marking_policy: The terms and conditions page makes no mention of any policy for marking or labelling AI-assisted content.
    Fix: Add a section to the terms or a dedicated policy page stating how AI-assisted content on GOV.UK is identified and labelled.
  • consistent: Without a stated AI content marking policy on this page, there is no evidence that marking is applied consistently.
    Fix: Publish and consistently apply a clear AI-content labelling convention across all GOV.UK content and reference it in the terms.
FAIL Human oversight of AI documented
  • oversight_exists: The page does not document any human oversight process for AI outputs published on GOV.UK.
    Fix: Add explicit language describing how humans oversee and verify any AI-generated outputs on GOV.UK.
  • review_process: No review or approval workflow for AI-generated content is described anywhere on this terms page.
    Fix: Document the editorial review and approval steps AI-assisted content must pass before publication.
  • accountability: While GDS is named as managing GOV.UK generally, no party is specifically identified as accountable for AI-generated content.
    Fix: Name a specific role or team (e.g. within GDS) accountable for AI-generated content and include their contact route.

Interoperability

Privacy

FAIL Cookie banner partner disclosure
  • partner_count_specific: No specific numeric count of third-party partners is provided in the banner copy.
    Fix: Add a specific number of third-party partners (e.g., 'cookies set by X other sites/partners') to the banner or link to a list with an exact count.

Provenance

Security

Transparency

FAIL Algorithm explanation if applicable
  • algorithm_explained: The terms and conditions page makes no mention of any algorithms used by GOV.UK or their purpose.
    Fix: Add a section describing any algorithmic or automated decision-making systems used on GOV.UK and their intended purpose.
  • impact_clear: There is no description of how algorithmic decisions might affect users on this page.
    Fix: Include a clear explanation of how any automated decisions or algorithmic processes could impact users of GOV.UK services.
FAIL Annual data practices statement
  • annual_statement: The privacy notice does not mention any periodic or annual review cycle for its data practices.
    Fix: Add a statement indicating the privacy notice is reviewed at a defined interval (e.g., annually) and include the date of the last review.
  • dated: The visible privacy notice content contains no last-updated date, version number, or effective date.
    Fix: Include a clearly visible 'Last updated' date or version identifier at the top or bottom of the privacy notice.

Level 3 — Advanced

Accessibility

Accountability

FAIL Published moderation policies
  • enforcement: While the page describes how to request removal and mentions reporting attacks to law enforcement, it does not explain the enforcement process, timelines, or appeal mechanisms for moderation decisions.
    Fix: Add a section detailing the moderation enforcement workflow, including review timelines, decision criteria, notification process, and how users can appeal removal or non-removal decisions.

Interoperability

Security

Transparency

FAIL Algorithmic decision criteria published
  • criteria_published: The page does not publish any specific criteria used in algorithmic decisions.
    Fix: Publish the specific criteria or input factors used by any algorithms that affect users, or link to a dedicated algorithmic transparency page.
  • weighting: No weighting or prioritisation of algorithmic criteria is described anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Document how different criteria are weighted or prioritised in any algorithmic decision process, for example via an algorithmic transparency record.
  • auditable: The page provides no technical or procedural detail that would support external audit of any algorithmic system.
    Fix: Provide or link to sufficient documentation (such as model cards or Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard entries) to enable independent review.

Responsibility to the Future

FAIL Environmental / sustainability disclosure
  • disclosure_exists: The page is a topic index linking to environmental services and guidance but contains no published environmental impact or sustainability disclosure about the website or its operator.
    Fix: Publish a dedicated sustainability or environmental impact statement for the site and link it from the page footer.
  • specific_metrics: No specific figures for carbon, energy use, or emissions appear anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Include quantified metrics such as annual carbon emissions, energy consumption, or per-page carbon estimates in the disclosure.
  • hosting_disclosure: The page provides no information about the carbon or energy profile of the hosting infrastructure.
    Fix: Add a statement describing the hosting provider's energy sources and carbon footprint, ideally noting any renewable-energy or green-hosting certification.