{"count":1,"message":"Results returned successfully","results":[{"odiNumber":10254409,"manufacturer":"General Motors, LLC","crash":false,"fire":false,"numberOfInjuries":0,"numberOfDeaths":0,"dateOfIncident":"12/19/2008","dateComplaintFiled":"01/09/2009","vin":"3GNEK13T02G","components":"SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC","summary":"RE:  NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID # 05V37900, NHTSA ACTION # PE05020.    I PURCHASED 2002 AVALANCHE IN LATE JULY, 2006, FROM FUCILLO CHEVROLET IN EAST GREENBUSH NY; MILEAGE ~44,000.  IN NOVEMBER, 2008 (~55,000 MILES), I NOTICED UNWANTED ABS ACTIVATION AT LOW SPEEDS AS DESCRIBED IN ABOVE REFERENCES.  INDEPENDENT MECHANIC CONFIRMED.  FUCILLO CHEVROLET DECLINED TO PROVIDE RECALL SERVICE, ADVISING THAT IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE PROBLEM HAD NOT BEEN REMEDIED.  CHEVROLET DECLINED FOR THE SAME REASON, ADVISING THAT THE RECALL REPAIR HAD BEEN DONE AT FUCILLO IN JULY, 2006, AND THAT THEIR OBLIGATION UNDER THE RECALL WAS TO PERFORM THE RECALL SERVICE ONLY ONE TIME, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE SERVICE FIXED THE DEFECT..  I THEN HAD AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC REPAIR THE DEFECT AT MY EXPENSE.  HE ADVISED THAT THE RECALL SERVICE HAD NOT BEEN DONE, AS COULD BE DETERMINED DURING THE REPAIR.    IF THE RECALL REPAIR WAS NOT IN FACT DONE, THEN THE DEALER MISREPRESENTED TO CHEVROLET (AND ME).  HOWEVER, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE RECALL SERVICE HAD ACTUALLY BEEN DONE OR NOT, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT CHEVROLET AND THE DEALER HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THEIR OBLIGATION DOES NOT EXTEND TO REMEDYING THE DEFECT -- THEY APPARENTLY MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN EFFECTIVE REPAIR WORK AND INEFFECTIVE REPAIR WORK.  IN EITHER EVENT, CHEVROLET AND ITS DEALER KNEW THAT THERE WAS AN UNSAFE VEHICLE SUBJECT TO RECALL AND DECLINED TO REMEDY THE DEFECT. *TR","products":[{"type":"Vehicle","productYear":"2002","productMake":"CHEVROLET","productModel":"AVALANCHE","manufacturer":"General Motors, LLC"}]}]}