Lendovia is committed to making its website accessible in accordance with Article 47 of French Law No. 2005-102 of 11 February 2005 on equal rights and opportunities, participation and citizenship of people with disabilities, and with the Référentiel Général d'Amélioration de l'Accessibilité (RGAA) version 4.1. The RGAA is the French adaptation of the international WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) standard: it takes up the same core principles — perceivable, operable, understandable, robust — but turns them into operational control criteria, paired with precise technical tests, designed to be applied concretely page by page, component by component, rather than as general recommendations.
The framework distinguishes three compliance statuses a site can display: compliant, when all applicable criteria are met; non-compliant, when the shortcomings are too numerous or too fundamental to allow normal use of the site with assistive technology; and partially compliant, an intermediate status which acknowledges that a significant share of the requirements is met while honestly flagging that identified defects remain to be corrected. It is this last status that applies to Lendovia: the site is neither exemplary nor closed off to assistive technologies, but sits in an intermediate situation, documented transparently below rather than hidden.
Lendovia is committed to applying the RGAA approach rigorously, in a spirit of genuine, continuous improvement of accessibility. Work on this site's accessibility remains ongoing: new fixes are regularly considered as defects are identified or reported by our users.
An internal audit was carried out on a sample of pages considered representative of the site as a whole, covering several distinct template families rather than a single page type. The sample included: the header and main navigation, common to all pages, along with the collapsed mobile menu that accompanies them; the financing simulation forms, where the user enters an amount, a term and a project type to obtain a monthly payment estimate; the product pages detailing the various credit offers (personal loan, revolving credit, debt consolidation) and borrower insurance; the entire financing application journey, from entering personal information through to the application confirmation screen; and finally the client area, where the user reviews the status of their application and their documents.
This audit covered several dimensions: the semantic structure of pages and heading hierarchy, the relevance of alternative text on images and icons, the colour contrast between text and its background, the labelling and logical grouping of form fields, end-to-end keyboard navigation of journeys, and general compatibility with assistive technologies such as screen readers.
Without claiming a precise numerical compliance rate — an internal audit of this kind cannot replace a full RGAA audit carried out by an independent accessibility expert — the results reveal a mixed picture. The best-handled areas concern the general semantic structure of pages (consistent use of heading tags, structuring into sections, logical reading order), the presence of alternative text on the vast majority of meaningful images, and the site's main navigation, correctly marked up and usable by keyboard. Conversely, several areas still require substantial work, in particular certain more complex interactive components of the simulator, the consistency of labelling on some forms, and the contrast of certain secondary text or input-assistance elements. These points are detailed one by one in the following section.
The content described below is not yet fully compliant with RGAA 4.1. Rather than a simple list of findings, we have chosen to detail each identified issue, its technical origin, its concrete impact on the people affected, and the corrective approach being considered, so that this statement reflects genuine audit work rather than a formality.
Several areas of the site use a muted text colour to visually distinguish secondary information — captions under form fields, small-print legal notices, help labels accompanying simulation sliders — from more contrasted primary text. On some pages, the contrast ratio between this muted text and its background does not reach the minimum threshold required by the RGAA colour contrast criterion for text of this size. In practice, this means these notices can be difficult, or even impossible, to read for a person with low vision or visual impairment, even without using any specific assistive technology: this defect affects all users with reduced visual acuity, not only screen-reader users. A systematic review of the colour pairs used in the stylesheet is being considered, with a targeted increase in contrast for the most problematic secondary-text colours.
In some forms in the financing application journey, particularly when a field combines a visual label, an icon and contextual help text, the accessible name relayed by the browser to assistive technologies does not exactly match the label displayed on screen. This defect falls under the RGAA criterion on form field labelling, which requires a reliable match between what a sighted user sees and what a screen reader announces. For a blind or visually impaired person navigating by keyboard with a screen reader, this discrepancy can create real confusion: the field announced aloud may seem not to match the one expected, or its purpose may remain ambiguous, which slows down data entry and can lead to input errors in a context where the accuracy of financial information entered matters particularly. The correction being considered involves reviewing the association between each label element and its field, and ensuring that additional accessibility attributes faithfully reflect the visible text.
The financing simulator offers an interactive slider allowing the amount borrowed or the repayment term to be adjusted visually by dragging a marker along a graduated scale. This type of component, more complex than a standard form field, must meet the RGAA criterion on keyboard navigation and use, which requires such a slider to be reachable by tabbing, adjustable with the keyboard arrow keys in small and large steps, and correctly announced — current value, minimum, maximum — by assistive technologies. However, on this component, keyboard handling remains partial: certain fine adjustments remain harder to make without a mouse, and the spoken announcement of the value while it is being changed is not always sufficiently clear. A person unable to use a mouse, due to a motor or visual impairment, may therefore have difficulty setting a precise amount. A rewrite of this component with full keyboard-event handling and appropriate ARIA attributes is under consideration.
The site uses numerous graphic icons for purely decorative or visual-reinforcement purposes, placed next to text labels that are already explicit — for example next to a link or a section heading. The RGAA criterion on images requires that this type of element, which adds no additional information beyond the text it accompanies, be explicitly hidden from assistive technologies, so as not to be needlessly announced. On some pages of the site, this hiding is not applied systematically: some of these icons remain exposed to screen readers, which may then announce them with a generic name or an unhelpful description, adding weight to the reading experience and hindering smooth navigation for a blind user, without providing any genuinely new information. A systematic review of the site's icons is planned, in order to consistently apply the expected hiding to those that are purely decorative.
When PDF documents are made available as part of a simulation or an application — draft contract offer, detailed repayment schedule, simulation summary — their internal structure is not always fully tagged for optimal rendering by assistive technologies. This concerns in particular the document's logical reading order, the semantic tagging of tables of figures, and the presence of alternative text on any graphic elements, all requirements covered by the RGAA criteria on office documents. For a person using a screen reader, a poorly tagged PDF may be read out in an inconsistent order, or with tables of figures unreadable outside their original visual structure, making understanding a repayment schedule particularly difficult. Progressively replacing these documents with versions generated with full structural tagging, or with natively accessible HTML alternatives offering the same content, is among the improvements being considered.
This statement was drawn up in 2026. It was prepared based on an internal audit carried out by the site's team, using a sample of pages considered representative of the main user journeys (browsing content, financing simulation, application submission, managing the client area), assessed against the success criteria of the Référentiel Général d'Amélioration de l'Accessibilité version 4.1.
The methodology used for an internal audit of this kind combines several complementary approaches, none of which is sufficient on its own. A manual review of the source code of each page in the sample made it possible to examine semantic structure, form markup and the use of accessibility attributes. Automated scanning tools were used in addition to quickly detect certain recurring defects, such as insufficient contrast, images without alternative text, or form fields without an associated label — these tools being known, however, to cover only a fraction of the framework's criteria, most of which require human judgement. Keyboard-only navigation tests, without using a mouse, were then carried out on the main journeys to verify that every interactive element remained reachable and usable in a logical order. Finally, occasional checks using a screen reader made it possible to verify how certain content and components are actually read aloud, particularly on forms and the most complex interactive components.
Each page in the sample was examined against the framework's main themes — images, frames, colours, multimedia, tables, links, scripts, mandatory elements, information structure, presentation, forms, navigation and browsing — and the non-compliances found were then recorded in order to prioritise their correction based on their estimated impact on real-world use of the site by people with disabilities.
If you are unable to access content or a service on this site due to an accessibility defect, you can contact us to be directed to an alternative or to obtain the content concerned in another form suited to your situation. You can report any accessibility issue you encounter from your client area, which centralises our contact channels.
When we receive a report, we acknowledge receipt of the message and first try to precisely understand the nature of the obstacle encountered: which page, which element, which assistive technology used, if applicable. Depending on the nature of the problem, we strive to provide the information or service by another means while the technical fix is being made — for example by passing on inaccessible content from a document through another channel, or by directly assisting the user in completing a step blocked by a faulty component. We strive to respond to each report within a reasonable time and to take these reports into account in our ongoing work to improve the site's accessibility, prioritising fixes according to the actual inconvenience caused.
This procedure should be used in the following case: you have reported an accessibility defect preventing you from accessing content or a service to the website's manager, and you have not received a satisfactory response within a reasonable time.
This means of redress is therefore not intended to replace the direct contact described above: it is a subsequent step, to be considered only when direct dialogue with the site has not resolved the difficulty encountered within a reasonable time, or when the response received does not provide a satisfactory solution to the reported obstacle.
You may then:
DÉFENSEUR DES DROITS
Postal mail — free, no stamp needed
Défenseur des droits — Libre réponse 71120 — 75342 Paris CEDEX 07