How new does a car need to be for it to be considered reliable and dependable? There are as many answers to that as there are cars and drivers. Modern cars are largely reliable for decades if well-kept, but deferred maintenance and sloppy upkeep can make a car look like it’s gone through hell in less than ten years. Clearly, not-new-car reliability depends on the car in question, but nonetheless, a British woman got a hard-and-fast ruling based on the age of her car alone from a company she had applied to: her 12-year-old car ruled her out for a trainee job at an estate agency.
The BBC reports that Alanah Thompson French, from Nottinghamshire in England, drives a 2014 Citroën C1 she bought last May. The small silver hatchback had less than 40,000 miles on the clock and one previous owner, making it a prime example of a good used buy for not a lot of money; she paid £2800, or less than four thousand dollars for it. It’s been getting her to work and back without any mechanical grief, and a car would continue to be a necessity were she to take the next step in her career toward working as an estate agent.
As well as sending a ton of applications elsewhere, she applied for a trainee lettings negotiator position in Nottingham in December. The estate agent company, which BBC names as haart, had replied that she didn’t make the interview shortlist as she had marked her car as being over 10 years old in the online application; they even had a separate box for the age of the car. She later received an email reply that the company had considered her application but ultimately decided not to invite her for an interview as they required access to a car newer than 10 years old.
In a statement provided to the BBC, the company replied: “It’s extremely important that people who work for us use reliable vehicles for their own personal safety, particularly where they travel many miles each day and often work alone.”
“Evidence from motoring organisations shows that the likelihood of mechanical problems increases as vehicles get older. For that reason, and in line with many organisations that require staff to use their own cars for work purposes, our policy is that vehicles should normally be under 10 years old.”
How Many People Even Have A New Enough Car?
This is certainly an interesting statement. For one, the average British car is around ten years old, according to the motoring organisation RAC; by the end of 2024, the precise average age was nine years and ten months. That means the average British driver would be on the edge of being acceptable for a position in which they would be required to drive their own car.
As Alanah herself says in the BBC article: “It’s just a bit of a kick in the teeth because obviously when you’re applying for jobs, you’re applying for loads and loads of jobs and to get an email back saying that … I just don’t understand it.”
“It doesn’t seem fair because how am I meant to afford a bigger and better car? And how am I meant to get insured on a bigger and better car?”
While the British used car market is usually priced cheaper than the rest of Europe, partially because of left-hand traffic and right-hand-drive, insurance is famously very expensive for young British drivers.
The situation is even worse for European drivers: based on this 2024 article using data from 2022, the average car in Europe was roughly 12 years old, and the economic situation has hardly improved after that. In the States, the average car is now nearing 13 years old according to S&P Global.
The Finnish Information Centre for the Automotive Sector states the average car in Finland is pushing 14 years. And to bring the point home to myself, when I last applied for a job, I was in fact asked whether I had access to a car for work. The fact my daily driver Corolla is over 25 years old didn’t matter, but perhaps it was deemed as reliable enough.
Does Being Nearly New Make A Car Reliable?
The woman named in the BBC article also has a reliable car, according to the RAC. The Citroën C1 is a badge-engineered version of the Toyota Aygo, also sold as the Peugeot 107, and with its Daihatsu powertrain in the gasoline versions, it’s one of the more reliable cars available for a budget sum.
And nearly-new cars haven’t proved to be as reliable as the Aygo: for instance, the now-infamous 1.2-liter PureTech engine has put a big dent in the image of Stellantis’ smaller cars, as the engine’s wet timing belt tends to crumble, blocking the oil passages with debris and requiring a big bill to put right. Stellantis has taken the step of rebranding its 1.2-liter engine line as the Turbo 100, backing the new motor with the statement that its timing chain and improved robustness would “increase driving pleasure.”
Ford isn’t off the hook, either, as the 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine, widely used in Fiestas and Focuses in Europe, also has the same wet-belt issue. Ford’s most troublesome units were produced up to 2019, and Stellantis only initially improved the PureTech with a timing chain in 2023, before introducing its successor that the company claims is more robust. These cars are out there on the used market, far newer than the stated 10-year cut-off for “likelihood of mechanical problems.” And a bad 12-volt battery can render any newish car inoperable, with the likelihood of the battery giving up the ghost increasing the newer the car is. Even the Toyota Yaris, a car considered reliable, is named in WhatCar’s reliability survey as having problems with the battery. The Nissan Juke, another popular car in the UK, got a ridiculous 50% score in another WhatCar survey, with the battery the main culprit.
But the likeliest explanation for the entire deal is that an estate agency simply doesn’t have the bandwidth to consider the multitude of vehicle choices when hiring new workforce. The blanket 10-year rule for cars means the least amount of effort needed to sift applications, as it relies on a simplified rule of thumb. It’s just that the current economic situation means more young people are applying for work while having a reduced budget to shop for cars to make that job happen, especially as new cars are increasingly more expensive.
In a Catch-22 situation, you need a job to be able to source a car, to buy one or finance it, but you also need that car to get the job in the first place. And while not every job lists a car as a requirement, a car-based economy with its long commutes means a lot of people need to rely on a car to get anywhere to begin with.
UPDATE, Good News
After the BBC’s article went online, the estate agency reversed its policy and welcomed Alanah for an interview. The company’s spokesperson stated: “We are extremely grateful to Alanah Thompson French for raising her concerns about our 10-year car age limit policy, which has now been dropped. Although it was introduced with good intentions, to ensure that colleagues use vehicles that are roadworthy and safe, it was never meant to prevent people from joining our organisation.”
“We are so impressed by Alanah’s tenacity in raising the issue. She is exactly the sort of person we would like to work for haart estate agents and we are contacting her to invite her for an interview.”
Top graphic image: Citroën
It should be noted that the job of a letting agent is not even to sell houses, it’s to show flats and houses that are for rent.
This is weird because people can (and do) smush their 2 week old Lexus’ bumper on the bollard at the Starbucks drive through. I’d be much more judgmental of someone driving a new car with significant cosmetic damage than a well-maintained one regardless of age.
A couple decades ago I worked for the Austin based IT firm Broadwing Technology as a desktop support monkey. My daily driver was a minty Mercedes 300SD which I parked in the badge entry controlled employee parking lot. It was jussst new enough as to not ear-mark me as a broke wage-slave. I also owned a very crusty 1980 Triumph Spitfire that was forever a project car, always one step ahead of my wrenching skills.
The Mercedes went to a local shop for a week for work and the Spitfire was my stand-in, which looked lost in the lot full of BMWs and status cars. It was very apparent my company was peer-driven, with the dress-for-success extending to what car you parked in the lot. My boss even made a crack about how it looked bad to drive my Triumph, as if I was jeopardizing a promotion or raise. I’d never stopped to consider that something as meaningless as your car could determine pecking order at a corporate job.
I think in the US, or at least in my state, I’m only allowed to ask someone in an interview if they have a reliable way to get to and from work (this can be public transit, Uber, a friend, etc.). I don’t even think I can ask if they have a valid drivers license.
For a Real Estate job, I supposed there is often the need to drive around clients, but that’s not about reliability. It’s about having a nice vehicle for clients (and in the US, having enough room for them to be comfortable as you take them around).
I’ll argue all day long about what impression you make when you pull up in certain cars. If you drive something too nice, clients will feel like they are paying too much. If you drive something dirty, full of trash, and poorly maintained, that says a lot too. I will 100% grab the Bolt or at least my little Miata if I’m talking to a client about EV charging stations, PV systems, or sustainable engineering. I don’t want to drive up with my full size truck with those clients, even if I have a justified use for it to tow our camper.
Reliability isn’t defined by age. My 20 year old Miata has been more reliable than my 5 year old truck over the past couple years.
If as an employer, you care about what your employees drive, you give them a car allowance and requirements on how they use that. Otherwise, you deal with it as an HR issue if they aren’t getting to work on time consistently.
Realtor here:
We don’t drive clients around.
We are not a limo service – and it’s a liability issue.
*Drives a 17 year old Mercedes to show houses*
Might be a difference in companies, when I was a kid and my parents bought a house, the real estate agent drove us form house to house in her Lexus – it was the first time I had seen wood burl trim inside a car.
I imagine some companies/agents view it as an opportunity to continue the sales pitch on the way from one listed house to another.
I’ve been driven around in one case and met the realtor at the house in another case, so it definitely varies. Also, if I’m not riding in your vehicle, I don’t care what you drive (unless it’s interesting).
I’m driving a pre-infotainment car and intend to continue doing so for as long as I can.
I like the C1/107/Aygo! Diahatsu engine, Toyota reliability, italian design(-er), cheap/useful, goes over 100 mph, incredible MPG (without number magic), not slow if you have the guts to actually mash the speeder and use the gearstick (a bit like in a 2CV).
It’s really too bad everybody moved on to the big heavy crossovers, and small cars aren’t what people want anymore.
“…it was introduced with good intentions, to ensure that colleagues use vehicles that are roadworthy and safe…”
No it wasn’t. That’s what MOT is for. My guess is that the policy was introduced to ensure that employees’ cars met their company image standard.
^^^ This ^^^
F this… there ought to be a law prohibiting such a policy, which borders on discrimination. I don’t know whether she’d have been expected to drive clients around in her personal vehicle for work, but honestly, it doesn’t matter. AFAIAC, it’s none of her employer’s business what kind of car she drives or how old it is. The nerve of them: it’s bad enough they expect/require her to use her own car for work purposes, but then to place a youth requirement (of the car) on top of that.
Bollocks! Bollocks I say!
PS: That Citroën C1 is adorbs, especially in powder blue in the top shot. 🙂
PPS: the fact that the youngest car in my fleet is 22 years old, and the oldest now 37 years old has nothing to do with my opinion. I just happen to like older cars, and I like not spending $50K on a car on average.
PPPS: every realtor I’ve ever known in Los Angeles, leases an upscale european sedan, purportedly to chauffer clients around in from time to time. Mercedes Benzes and Audis seem to be the most popular, either in black or white. Such cars are where I first encountered the popular Latvian Whorehouse design motif so common to German iron these days, with the gaudy colored LED light strips reflecting off of bit of chome in the interior. Personally, I’d be more inclined to believe what the driver of the C1 said about a property.
Basically, every outside salesman and often Sales Managers in the US get a company car, or a stipend to cover the cost of a car. It makes little sense to not cover that as part of the job compensation to me.
Yes, of course… though given the turnover in real estate agencies, the latter is probably more likely than the former. Also, many realtors seem to be ‘associated’ with an agency though not technically a full-time employee. Thus (my impression) is that some, if not most, just lease the cars on their own and tell their tax preparers to use it as a business expense.
Not that anyone asked of course, but if your employer does provide a company car or a stipend for one, you do obviously have to declare that value as income and pay taxes on it.
Company saw the incoming PR nightmare and is trying to get ahead of it…
Sadly, you almost have to be the proverbial “Karen” in way more instances than should be allowable.
The company I work for could never have such a policy, primarily because the boss could potentially show up in a Model T on any given day. That said, I think this is more image based but cloaked in the idea of reliability. Real estate agents usually show up in “nicer” cars to project an image. Granted, this does NOT mean they’re in good condition under the skin. I have a few real estate agent customers and while some keep their cars very well, there are often deferred items lurking…
Yet another low hanging opportunity for prejudice.
I’m all for personal freedoms and people driving what they want- My second car is an ‘86 Volvo- but as a business owner I absolutely understand having some sort of vehicle age/condition policy if driving is part of the job.
Unfortunately, it’s simply much easier to make a judgement based on a vehicle’s age, than it is to grill an applicant on their maintenance habits.
We run a construction business, and have basically given up hiring employees or subcontractors with old or modified vehicles.
We had a framing subcontractor with an older lifted, modified diesel truck. He was a good guy; but there was always something up with the truck. Mud tires didn’t grip in the snow. 4×4 wouldn’t engage. Problems with the deleted engine tune. Complaining about the length and cost of his commute… Just lease a Corolla and get some snow tires already.
The other factor is image. We are trying to be professional and our clients are paying us good money. We also pay generous wages. We can’t be demanding $xxx per hour when the team is showing up to the jobsite in a fleet of beaters.
Full disclosure- I have been the guy deferring maintenance on my old car, breaking down and missing work because of it. I am plenty familiar with the beater lifestyle.
You can enforce such policies after the employee is hired, stating them in the interview and including them in the contract. Of course, if during the interview the answer is “I refuse to drive anything that isn’t my beloved shitbox, no matter how much you pay me”, that’s grounds for not hiring them, but that’s a different matter.
Proof of employment is a key factor when applying for a car loan, and both auto loans I’ve taken so far have been based on offer letters, each time I needed a reliable car to get to my new job. Don’t let the age/condition of the car that shows up to drop off the resume rob you of a quality candidate.
Maybe a policy that after, say, 3 instances of being late/absent due to mechanical issues there will need to be A Chat. I think that’s fine share at the time of interview, along with saying “we’ve had to let 4 people go this year due to transportation issues” so the applicant understands the policy is enforced.
That’s a succinct and fair way to handle it.
I agree with you on this. Years ago I had a job where the policy was that if you were late more than 3 times in a rolling 12 month period you were fired. Clocking in one minute after the start of your shift counted as late. They didn’t care about your transportation situation, you just had to get there on time.
I’m fine with that. Basically it means get there at 8:50 and drink your coffee. 1 minute late might sound extreme, but no matter the grace period, someone will inevitably miss it by a minute.
I even worked at a place where they said we really want you here by 8:30. What that meant was, you need to be at your desk and performing work by 9:01 and not walking in the door on your way to brew a pot of coffee. Weird way to say it, but never a problem and fair enough.
I thought it was a little harsh, but it was a union job and that’s what the contract specified, so there was never any leeway or judgement involved. They allowed you to clock in 5 minutes early, if I remember correctly. There was always a line at the time clock at shift start. Anyway, I never fell afoul of the rule. I left there on my own terms when I decided to go to college.
I feel like Amazon got in trouble for this b/c their warehouse employees had be on the other side of the metal detectors by the start of their shift, but the line was (sometimes) 30 minutes so ppl had to spend extra unpaid time there.
Could be. Our situation was more like 10 or 15 people clocking in so it wasn’t an issue.
In reality, this is less of a firm policy or deliberate hiring choice, and more of a coincidence that goes along with hiring candidates that are serious about their craft, and have their shit together.
It’s one of many factors that says a fair bit about an individual’s lifestyle, as well as their level of professionalism, commitment and attention to detail. I’m not against hiring people with well-maintained older vehicles, but to be quite honest that scenario hasn’t really presented itself. Our climate and roads are quite hard on vehicles in general, so older vehicles get chewed up fast. Modified vehicles I would say are more of red flag.
Much of our skilled labour comes from short-term subcontractors and trades people, marketing their services to complete a section of the build. We have little control over what they drive, but we can choose to go with a different quote.
It sounds like your relationship with most of them has you more in the position of customer rather than employer, which is quite different from what I had assumed.
Someone independently contracting their work short-term on a regular basis is effectively running a business and should act as such, which includes keeping a reliable business vehicle.
I myself, as a customer, wouldn’t call the number on the side of a modified beater (you can afford 37’s but not basic maintenance? Yeesh), but as a hiring manager, I’d never ask about the current vehicle someone drives, only clarify that they must drive something reliable and (if applicable) presentable once hired. Your position sounds closer to the former than the latter.
I can understand if you are driving people around. Ride share cars can only be 11 or 12 years old most of the time I think. If she was going to drive people around in her car like real estate agents do perhaps. But it’s bound to be more reliable then a 3 year old range rover. That I would bet would be a prime choice for a real estate agent. They are just used car salesmen at this point anyway. So they behaviors don’t surprise me at all. 90s,2000s cars will probably live forever. So reliability definitely isn’t the reason it’s image. Or maybe you can argue safety in ride share.
A three year old Range Rover is still getting serviced at the dealer under warranty.
It doesn’t mean it’s reliable just they will send a tow truck and attempt to fix it for you.
That’s the bigger issue: how do we all feel about Uber et al having that policy? Probably disqualified a significant share of applications.
Very true. I’ve picked up some vehicles cheap off people that were trying to get into ride share or do the marketplace rental for ride share but didn’t realize the vehicle was too old to qualify.
They aren’t making money as it is but if those tech scammers would stop some and make an additional discount class for older vehicles. I could see it going well in many markets.
They have that in Brazil. Only Uber Black has a requirement for vehicle age. I’ve ridden in some downright crummy cars down there, but it was proportionally cheap.
When I was a kid I remember adds for “rent-a-wreck.” The name said it all. I think there might be a market for cheaper rideshares, especially for local trips. Highway driving not so much.
This article seems too specific; only one instance cited – was expecting stats on how this is widespread..
And the stated reasons were reliability and safety, but the safety aspect gets no focus. hard to argue that newer cars are not safer!
That said, my current fleet includes a 2006, 1998, 1992, and 1971 vehicles; glad my employer does not discriminate!
I think safety is the excuse for the policy and it’s really about “image” but you can’t say it out loud.