If the machine log shows:
• The exact timestamp of your payment,
• The exact last three characters on the ticket, and
• You have the matching physical ticket from that time,
then you can argue beyond doubt that payment was made for the vehicle.
In court, Excel would need to persuade a judge that despite you paying, displaying the ticket, and leaving within the paid time, you should still owe them £100 simply because their system didn’t record the full VRM. That is very weak.
Judges tend to apply common sense. If the log and ticket line up, then on the balance of probabilities it was your vehicle, and the landowner suffered no loss. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 helps you too: Excel relying on a minor “technicality” (machine error or truncation) to impose a £100 penalty is arguably an unfair contract term.
If you get a court claim, your defence should hammer these points:
• Proof of payment & matching evidence – ticket and machine record correspond exactly.
• Machine failure, not driver error – previous and later tickets show the machine produces inconsistent outputs.
• De minimis breach – any breach is trivial; you paid for an hour and only stayed 20 minutes.
• Unfair contract term – CRA 2015, Schedule 2 (examples of unfair terms).
• No legitimate interest – Beavis doesn’t apply; this isn’t overstaying or free parking abuse.
That combination is strong enough that Excel’s claim would be very shaky.