{"count":1,"message":"Results returned successfully","results":[{"odiNumber":10360893,"manufacturer":"UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER","crash":false,"fire":false,"numberOfInjuries":0,"numberOfDeaths":0,"dateOfIncident":"03/16/2010","dateComplaintFiled":"10/15/2010","vin":"","components":"SUSPENSION","summary":"CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO A KIA RECALL *TGW  THE CONSUMER STATED SHE TOOK HER VEHICLE TO THE DEALER IN COMPLIANCE WITH A RECALL. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SUBFRAME WAS REPLACED AS MANDATED BY THE RECALL. THE CONSUMER STATED PRIOR TO THE VEHICLE BEING SERVICED, THERE WERE NO NOISES, NO UNUSUAL TIRE WEAR, NO MISALIGNMENT PROBLEMS OR STEERING STRESS AS INDICATED IN THE LETTER SHE RECEIVED AS POSSIBLE SIGNS THAT THE SUBFRAME MAY NEED TO BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED.  THE CONSUMER STATED SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED, THERE WAS A KNOCKING NOISE COMING FROM THE FRONT END.  THE CONSUMER RETURNED TO THE DEALER AND UPON INSPECTION, THERE WAS INDEED SOMETHING LOOSE WHICH WAS THEN TIGHTENED.  A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE DEALER TO ADVISE THEM THE PROBLEM HAD NOT BEEN RESOLVED. THE CONSUMER RETURNED TO THE DEALER, HOWEVER SHE WAS INFORMED THEY WOULD HAVE TO PERFORM A DIAGNOSTIC CHECK TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE AND THE CONSUMER WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE SERVICE. THE CONSUMER DECLINED THE DIAGNOSTIC CHECK. THE CONSUMER HAS SINCE BEEN TOLD THAT HER ONE YEAR OLD TIRES WERE CUPPING DUE TO AN IMPROPER ALIGNMENT.  *JB","products":[{"type":"Vehicle","productYear":"9999","productMake":"UNKNOWN","productModel":"UNKNOWN","manufacturer":"UNKNOWN MANUFACTURER"}]}]}