27. Subject to Articles 29 and 35 of this Order, should no indication appear on the hand held
device that payment of the parking charge has been made or an indication that the parking
period for which payment of the parking charge was made has expired it shall be presumed
unless the contrary is proved, that either -
(a) the parking charge has not been duly paid tn respect of that vehicle, or
(b) the parking period for which payment of the parking charge was made
has already expired, or
(c) the free parking period has not been registered, or
(d) the free parking period has expired.
But from what I can see, you have proved and they have accepted 'the contrary'.
This is about failure to comply with the provisions in an Order, so which provision do they claim was breached given that they accept that the 'owner' who they are pursuing paid.
Have they highlighted the provisions which they are drawing to the adjudicator's attention?