{"count":1,"message":"Results returned successfully","results":[{"odiNumber":11130207,"manufacturer":"Subaru of America, Inc.","crash":false,"fire":false,"numberOfInjuries":0,"numberOfDeaths":0,"dateOfIncident":"09/17/2018","dateComplaintFiled":"09/18/2018","vin":"JF1SG696244","components":"SUSPENSION","summary":"THE CONTROL ARM FELL OFF. THE BODY OF THE VEHICLE FELL TO THE GROUND. THE OTHER ONE IS ALMOST COMPLETELY RUSTED THROUGH. THE RECALL ON THIS PART ALLOWED THE DEALER TO USE THEIR DISCRETION TO EITHER REPLACE THE CONTROL ARMS, OR SPRAY RUST PROOFING OVER CORROSION, WHICH THEY DID. THIS OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT STOP THE RUSTING, AND IT EVENTUALLY RUSTED THROUGH. I LUCKILY WAS NOT INJURED. I AM QUESTIONING THE ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING SAFETY RECALL. TO ALLOW THE DEALER TO DECIDE IF THE CORROSION IS LIGHT ENOUGH TO SIMPLY SPRAY RUST PROOFING OVER IT SEEMS LUDICROUS. RUST PROOFING DOES NOT STOP CORROSION FROM CONTINUING WHEN IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN. I CALLED SUBARU USA TO SEE IF THEY WOULD REPLACE THE CONTROL ARMS. THEY WOULD NOT, AND WOULD PROVIDE NO COMPENSATION, AS THEY FEEL THEIR RUSTPROOFING SATISFIED THE RECALL.   THE SAFETY RECALL IS FOR THE LIFE OF A VEHICLE. IF THEIR RUSTPROOFING DID NOT FIX THE PROBLEM, WHICH IT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT, WHY SHOULDN'T THEY BE REQUIRED TO FIX IT CORRECTLY? CONTROL ARMS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO RUST AWAY AND FALL OFF A CAR! HOW DANGEROUS! I'M SURE I'M NOT THE ONLY VEHICLE OWNER WHOSE CONTROL ARMS EVENTUALLY ROTTED AWAY AFTER THE CORROSION WAS 'RUSTPROOFED' OVER BY SUBARU.  SO DANGEROUS! I AM ASKING THAT SUBARU BE REQUIRED TO COVER THE COSTS OF THESE CONTROL ARMS! AND ALSO, I AM REQUESTING THE NHTSA TO AGREE AND ADVISE SUBARU THAT A SAFETY RECALL ACTION THAT DOES NOT ULTIMATELY FIX THE SAFETY ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED CLOSED/COMPLETED.","products":[{"type":"Vehicle","productYear":"2004","productMake":"SUBARU","productModel":"FORESTER","manufacturer":"Subaru of America, Inc."}]}]}