I just did a quick search on this, and what I found said that de Payens did not have a coat of arms, because heraldry didn't exist yet.
Well, I can't say that de Payens had a coat of arms, but in the 12th C heraldic items such as seals were in use and c. 1155, the tomb of Geoffery de Plaganet had armorial bearings. See Fox-Davies,
A Complete Guide to Heraldry, p. 62. Additionally, the surcoat from whence the term coat of arms may derive was used in the period of the crusades. We see the use of heraldry in the Bayeaux Tapestry reflecting the 1066 events, which only a few of us remember. The first roll of arms was 1298. Lionheart used arms in 1198, etc
The more important question for this purpose, though, is the inheritance of arms. Scopes v Grosvenor was at least one of the earliest trials in inheritance, but that was not until 1389, with the facts arising in the 1385 invasion of Scotland, with Grosvenor -claiming- his ancestor brought the arms in the 1066 invasion.
So, it is plausible that de Payans bore arms, but not likely they were inherited and not to my knowledge proveable in a court of heraldry (with which I have some experience).
(Guess who is a Fellow of the Society of Scottish Armigers and can and will bang on about this forever).