Formal complaint timeline: core issues still ignored

Date: 15 May 2026. Updated 7 June 2026.

Privacy note: staff names and precise residential location details have been removed from this public summary. The purpose is to document the complaint process and the unresolved operational issues, not to identify individual staff members.

On 1 April 2026, after more than a year of failed informal complaints, in-store visits, online messages, and conversations with multiple store and regional representatives, I started another formal complaint process with Checkers Sixty60.

This was not a casual complaint. Residents in our street have been living with repeated Checkers Sixty60 delivery-bike noise through what was once a quiet residential area. On many days there are more than 100 passes. On some days residents have counted or recorded more than 200.

The issue is not only the number of deliveries. It is also the type of motorbikes being used, the incline of the road, and the fact that the street is being used as a shortcut instead of keeping high-frequency delivery traffic on main roads.

The 1 April formal complaint

On 1 April 2026, I sent a formal written complaint asking for five basic things: a complaint reference number, confirmation that the complaint had been logged, the name or department handling it, what action Checkers intended to take, and a timeline for follow-up and resolution.

I explained that the noise was frequent, intrusive, and affecting my quality of life and mental wellbeing. I also explained that most of the problem appeared to be caused by loud BigBoy Velocity motorbikes repeatedly passing through the street, including on Sundays.

The same-day reply gave a reference number, but the substance of the response immediately shifted the issue to driver behaviour. The complaint was sent to the driver department, described as Pingo, and no action plan or timeline was provided.

That distinction matters. This is not simply a matter of one driver being inconsiderate. Speaking to drivers does not make a loud motorbike quiet. It does not change the route. It does not set standards for the bikes used in residential delivery operations.

Two weeks of silence

By 15 April 2026, I had heard nothing further. I followed up because the noise and traffic continued.

On 20 April 2026, Checkers replied that the matter had been escalated to the driver department and that internal processes were being followed. Again, the answer was that the noise issue would be addressed with the drivers.

I replied that this did not address the root problem. The real issues are that Checkers Sixty60 continues to allow loud motorbikes to be used repeatedly through residential streets, appears unwilling to use nearby main roads where possible, and has not communicated any meaningful standard for the noise impact of its delivery fleet.

Within minutes of sending that email, more bikes passed. I sent additional follow-ups noting how many had gone past in the short time since my previous message. That is the reality of living with this problem: while you are trying to complain about the noise, the noise keeps interrupting the complaint.

Another follow-up, another partial answer

On 29 April 2026, after hearing nothing again, I followed up.

The response said that the matter had been escalated and addressed with the drivers. It also said feedback from delivery partners was that it was not possible to stop drivers from using the specific road because there were many orders in the street and surrounding area. Reckless driving, they said, had been addressed internally.

This again missed the point. Residents are not asking Checkers to stop serving customers. We are asking them to stop treating a residential street as the default route for high-frequency delivery traffic when nearby main roads are available. Those main roads may add a small amount of time, but would move much of the noise away from homes that are currently forced to absorb it all day.

I replied that residents are being forced to endure more than 100, and sometimes more than 200, passes by loud delivery bikes. I explained that I cannot focus on work, cannot relax properly, and live with constant anxiety because there is no quiet in my own home for most of the day. I asked to speak to someone higher up.

The 6 May refusal

On 5 May 2026, after another day with more than 200 passes, I followed up again and asked for the contact details of someone responsible.

On 6 May 2026, Checkers replied that the matter had been escalated further. This was the central part of the response:

Due to the amount of orders that in the area and in the road specifically, our team have advised that we are not able to change the route without impacting other customers, as well as we have been advised that due to it being a Public road and a route used to get to customer we are not able to change the routes

We do apologize that we are not able to have your issue resolved

That was the clearest answer so far: Checkers was aware of the problem, aware of the impact, and still said it could not resolve it.

I replied that this was unacceptable. I asked again why the company was not setting standards for the bikes used by its drivers. I asked why adding a small amount of time by using main roads was being treated as unreasonable, while forcing residents to absorb constant noise was apparently acceptable. I again asked for someone with authority to contact me.

The longer response still avoided the root issue

On 8 May 2026, I received a longer response. It said that Sixty60 delivery vehicles are regularly inspected and maintained to ensure they are roadworthy and compliant with applicable regulatory standards. It also said drivers undergo training and had been reminded to be mindful of noise.

This still did not address the core issue.

A motorbike can be roadworthy and still be unsuitable for repeated residential delivery use at this frequency. A bike can be legally allowed on the road and still create a nuisance when it passes homes over and over again throughout the day. Compliant is not the same as considerate. Public road is not a serious answer to a repeated noise complaint from affected residents.

I replied that no tangible action had been offered. Checkers had not agreed to use main roads where possible. It had not acknowledged that the loud BigBoy Velocity bikes are unsuitable for this residential use case. It had not committed to replacing them with quieter alternatives. It had not sent anyone to the street to hear what residents are being forced to hear.

The reply I received later that day simply referred me back to the earlier feedback.

Evidence, because complaints are not enough

By 11 May 2026, after another extremely noisy Sunday, I sent Checkers further information. Residents had started gathering evidence because direct complaints were clearly not leading to action.

A camera had been installed to help identify and count delivery-bike passes. The system still requires manual review and classification, but the early data already showed the scale of the problem. On one Sunday, between 10:00 and 18:00, the system identified 173 candidate passes before final review and classification. That averages roughly one pass every three minutes across an eight-hour period.

This is a quiet residential street, not a main road.

I told Checkers that the direct route had clearly led nowhere and that a public campaign may now be necessary. I again asked to speak to someone with authority.

A phone call, but still no clear plan

On 12 May 2026, Checkers asked for a contact number and a time to call.

On 13 May 2026, I provided my number. A senior customer relations representative then contacted me. The call was professional and empathetic in tone. The issue appeared to be understood. Follow-up was expected by 20 May 2026.

But after the call, there was still no clear action plan, no commitment to change routes, no commitment to address the type of bikes being used, and no timeline for relief.

The message was essentially that the matter would be discussed and feedback may follow, but nothing could be promised.

After more than a year of complaints, multiple in-store visits, conversations with several managers, failed promises of follow-up, repeated written escalations, and now documented evidence, that is not enough.

The promised 20 May follow-up did not happen

No follow-up was received on 20 May 2026.

On 25 May 2026, I called to ask what had happened. I was told that the internal meeting had been postponed until 27 May 2026. From a resident perspective, this was another example of the burden being left with affected households while the noise continued.

When a complaint concerns daily intrusion into people's homes, missed follow-ups matter. They are not administrative details. They are days of continued noise with no mitigation.

The 27 May call offered only long-term possibilities

On 27 May 2026, I received another call. I was told there was good news and bad news.

The "good news" was described as an electric-bike trial expected in about a year's time. I was also told that Checkers agreed there are issues with noisy bikes and that alternatives may be considered gradually as current bikes go out of service.

That may be relevant as a long-term direction, but it does not solve the immediate problem. A trial in about a year still means affected residents are expected to continue enduring the same conditions now. Gradually replacing bikes as they leave service could take years. Neither point answers the direct route-change request.

The immediate question remains simple: why can high-frequency delivery-bike traffic not be routed onto nearby main roads wherever possible, especially when residents have supplied mapped alternatives that appear to have little or no travel-time penalty?

The written response confirmed no immediate solution

Later on 27 May 2026, Checkers sent a written response. It thanked the resident for the call, said operational managers work with authorities and communities, and described delivery-bike noise as a global challenge for on-demand service providers.

The key point was that Checkers said it did not currently have an immediate solution available and would continue working with relevant stakeholders to find practical ways to resolve the issue.

From the resident perspective, that response did not address the actual request. Residents were not asking for a global industry solution. They were asking for immediate, practical mitigation on a specific residential route where the noise is happening every day.

The response also did not explain why a routing change could not be trialled while longer-term fleet changes are being considered.

A specific route proposal was sent

After another weekend of repeated delivery-bike noise, I sent Checkers a mapped route proposal on 31 May 2026.

The first map compared the route residents say riders are currently using with an alternative route that keeps riders on main roads for substantially more of the journey. According to the Google Maps screenshot sent to Checkers, both options were approximately 1.5 km and approximately 3 minutes.

I asked Checkers to answer four direct questions:

• Whether Checkers had assessed the feasibility of routing Sixty60 deliveries via the proposed alternative route.
• If it had been assessed, what the outcome was.
• If it had not been assessed, whether Checkers would commit to formally evaluating it.
• What specific action, if any, was being taken to reduce the impact on residents while longer-term solutions were being explored.

I then sent a second mapped comparison covering a wider delivery pattern. According to that screenshot, a main-road route capable of servicing the relevant area was only approximately 100 to 200 metres longer than the route residents say is currently being used, with the same estimated travel time of approximately 3 minutes.

The point is not that residents can redesign a delivery network from the outside. The point is that Checkers has been given a practical, immediate mitigation option that appears to deserve formal assessment. If there is a real operational reason it cannot be used, residents should be told what that reason is.

As of 3 June, there is still no answer

As of 3 June 2026, no response has been received to those route-alternative emails.

That means the current position is still unresolved: Checkers has acknowledged that there are issues with noisy bikes, has mentioned a possible electric-bike trial in about a year, and has referred to longer-term work with stakeholders. But it has not answered the immediate routing proposal, has not committed to a main-road trial, and has not given affected residents a timeline for relief.

For residents living with the noise every day, that is the central failure. The problem does not require a year-long wait before any action is attempted. A route trial could be assessed now. Riders could be instructed now to avoid using the residential street as a through-route unless they are delivering there. The company could explain its decision now.

On 7 June, the noise and silence continued

On Sunday evening, 7 June 2026, I wrote again because more than a week had passed since the mapped route alternatives were sent and no response or confirmation of action had been received.

At the time of writing, residents were again sitting through repeated Sixty60 delivery-bike noise on an otherwise quiet Sunday evening. The report sent to Checkers described bikes passing every few minutes and another week of heavy daily bike traffic through the residential route.

The email asked for a clear answer to the practical question that remains unresolved: why has nothing been done when a simple instruction could reduce the impact immediately?

The requested instruction is not complicated: if riders are not delivering in the affected residential street, they should not use it as a through-route. Residents again asked whether available GPS or route data can be used to monitor and enforce this, whether the main-road alternatives will be trialled, and by what date practical mitigation will be implemented.

The core issues remain ignored

Throughout this process, the same pattern has repeated. Checkers keeps talking about drivers. Residents keep talking about the system.

The problem is not only how individual drivers behave. The problem is the delivery model being pushed through a residential street at high frequency, using loud motorbikes that are poorly suited to this environment, while the company has not made meaningful operational changes.

The practical requests remain simple:

• Use main roads where possible instead of residential shortcuts.
• Set real noise and suitability standards for delivery motorbikes.
• Replace loud petrol bikes with quieter alternatives on residential routes.
• Provide an accountable escalation path with someone who has authority to act.
• Stop treating each complaint as an isolated inconvenience when residents are describing an ongoing quality-of-life problem.

Residents support delivery services. But delivery convenience cannot be the only factor that matters. People also have the right to peace in their own homes.

At this stage, the most concerning part is not only the noise. It is the way the complaint has been handled: repeated acknowledgements, repeated escalations, repeated references to drivers, long-term possibilities presented without immediate relief, no answer to a specific route proposal, and continued noise after yet another Sunday escalation.

That is why this issue now needs to be public.