17/03/2026
“You didn’t get the job… because your car is too old.”
I’ve got a 2012 Audi TT. MK2, 39,000 miles. Looked after properly (or I’d like to think so given the time and money I spend on it… but I digress). I read this BBC article and hit got a little close to home.
According to this policy, I wouldn’t even get an interview.
Here’s the article:
https://loom.ly/rjtcs0A
According to BBC, the employer said: “It’s extremely important that people who work for us use reliable vehicles for their own personal safety…”
As a result, the 18-year-old woman applied for a trainee role…and wasn’t even shortlisted because her car was over 10 years old.
So… is there a right or wrong answer here?
On face value, it feels wrong. She’s trying to get into work. She’s saved up and bought a car. And the door is closed before she even gets a conversation.
But then you look at it from the employer’s side. The role involves:
• Travelling
• Potentially working alone
• Relying on a vehicle day-to-day
So the business sets a rule: “Your car must be under 10 years old”
Here’s where it gets interesting for me. Is that:
A reasonable business requirement?
or
A blunt recruitment policy that excludes the wrong people?
Because let’s be honest…A car’s age doesn’t automatically equal reliability. And rules like this can easily:
• Filter out younger candidates
• Filter out lower-income applicants
• Limit access to entry-level roles
All without saying it directly.
And this is what I find fascinating from an HR perspective. These aren’t usually “bad” decisions, they’re policies that:
• Start with good intentions
• Get written into process
• And then… never get reviewed
So I’m curious:
Would you have the same rule?
If not, how would you define “reliable” more fairly?
Where’s the line between protecting your business… and excluding people?
Genuinely interested in where people land on this one.
Alanah Thomspon French says her application was not progressed as her car was more than 10 years old.
