The Terms of the Panasonic Promption, as I recall, were that the claim could not be submitted until 28 days after the purchase. Customers were then expected to wait for up to another 28 days to receive payment from the confirmation email. I did not receive a cheque within the latter 28 day period and sent emails to both Pansonic and the Third Party cash back administrators. I gave them 7 working days to provide cleared funds to my account. Panasonic did reply and subsequently the Third Party told me a cheque was being sent first class and would arrive the following day. It did not and was in fact sent second class and arrived another 2 days later. So for the second year running, a payment of £200 each time was overdue, made worse by having to pay my tax bill by 31 Jan 16. I was not impressed, great cameras (GH3 and G7) but I have a diminished view of the Company.
Had I not received funds into my Bank in time, the next stage would be to send a 'letter before action' to Panasonic (UK) HQ by Registered Post. This outlines that Court proceeding will commence without further notice if payment has not been received in say 10 working days. No point in dealing with the Third Party at this stage, your contract is with Panasonic. This is normally sufficient to generate some action, companies realise that you are not going to be fobbed off and don't like the hassle of dealing with the County Court. However, Samsung took it to the wire and I had actually completed the County Court paperwork as my expiry date was looming, but then received payment at the last gasp.
So are purchasers being dealt with unfairly? Sadly I think they are and damage to company reputations seems to be of such little concern. A certain percentage of buyers do not claim and various hoops and obstacles seem to be a feature of the Terms and Conditions which should always be read and diary entries made. Panasonic say that if payment has not been received in 28 days then the Third Party must be notified within 7 days (day 28 to 35) or they will not entertain the claim. That's outrageous and would probably fail the Unfair Terms and Conditions legislation.