'Protect Lui Peng': UK Web Developer Posts Message on Client's Homepage After Not Being Paid for a Year - Was He Wrong?

A UK freelance web developer has sparked a wider debate about unpaid work and the limits of self-help after publicly altering a client's website to accuse them of failing to pay for services delivered more than a year earlier. The action, which was shared widely on social media, has drawn sharp reactions from freelancers and legal commentators alike.

The developer, Lui Peng, documented the dispute in a series of TikTok videos posted in late December, explaining why he replaced the homepage of a client's live website with a message demanding payment. The videos quickly gained traction, resonating with independent workers who say late or missing payments are a persistent problem in the gig economy.

While many online have expressed sympathy for Peng's situation, legal experts caution that accessing or modifying a client's website without permission may expose freelancers to legal risk. The episode has reignited questions about how independent workers can protect themselves when invoices go unpaid, and where the line lies between protest and unlawful conduct.

What Appeared on the Website

​​In the first viral video, Peng filmed a computer screen showing a business website displaying a stark message stating that services had been delivered but payment remained outstanding. The notice named the business and said access would be restored once the developer was paid.

In the accompanying caption, Peng said he was no longer willing to tolerate what he described as repeated delay tactics. He urged clients to pay the people who work for them and said he intended to leave unpaid work behind in the new year.

The post quickly struck a chord with freelancers online, many of whom shared accounts of chasing overdue invoices or abandoning claims because of the time and cost involved in pursuing payment.

'He Was a Friend': The Dispute Explained

In follow-up videos, Peng shared screenshots of messages exchanged with the client, identified as Joe, who he says owns the business linked to the website. According to Peng, tensions escalated after he sent his bank details and was allegedly asked to collect cash in person following months of delays.

Speaking via Instagram, Peng said the dispute was complicated by a long-standing personal relationship. 'Joe has always been a friend of mine and I considered him a friend for a long time,' he said. 'That's why I was always happy to help him out, work for him for free and do things when he didn't have the money.'

Peng said the website was one of his earliest freelance projects and that his role gradually expanded. He later took on additional work, including managing social media, taking product photographs at £100 per item and covering upfront costs for framed artwork.

At its highest point, he claims the unpaid balance reached around £2,500, before partial payments reduced the outstanding amount to approximately £1,200.

'He was always bad with payments, but before he always paid,' Peng said. 'Over the past year, the excuses never stopped and eventually the calls were ignored.'

Social Media Exposure

In a final video, Peng told viewers that the public attention had already achieved more than formal legal action might have. He joked that he had chosen 'social media violence', clarifying that he meant public exposure rather than any physical threat.

He said he no longer planned to pursue the debt through the courts, adding that the response to the videos had brought new work opportunities and increased visibility. Peng also asked viewers not to harass unrelated businesses with similar names.

Legal Risks Under UK Law

Under UK law, freelancers are entitled to payment for completed work under a contract or implied agreement. Late invoices can be pursued through the small claims court or under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.

However, legal experts warn that accessing or altering a live website without permission may expose an individual to claims under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, breach of contract or interference with business operations. Even when a developer builds a site, control typically passes to the client unless a contract explicitly states otherwise.

While creators are generally the first owners of copyright in original work, courts may find that an implied licence exists allowing a client to use the work for its intended purpose. That can limit a freelancer's ability to withdraw access once a site is live.

A Wider Freelancer Issue

Peng argues the dispute reflects a broader structural issue in freelance work, particularly for those early in their careers. Government research supports that view, with more than half of UK freelancers reporting late payment and many avoiding legal action because of cost and uncertainty.

Legally, Peng may have exposed himself to risk. Publicly, many believe he exposed a system that too often leaves freelancers without leverage once work is delivered. The episode has become less about one unpaid invoice and more about power and protection in the modern gig economy.

As Peng put it, 'This year I decided I'm not having it anymore.'