In January 2024, a Wirral resident (for our non-UK readers, the Wirral is the peninsula between the River Mersey (and the City of Liverpool) and the River Dee (and North Wales)) had an agreement with a neighbour, Aaron Borbora, to cut down a 90ft poplar tree which was dying.

The tree was positioned on the corner of Mr Borbora’s boundary, so at the time, it was reasonable to assume that it belonged to Mr Borbora. The resident, concerned that the tree could fall on his house, agreed to pay for its removal. The condition of the tree was supported by a professional tree report. A second tree report, six months later (August 2024), showed that the tree was in a more dangerous condition than originally thought—it was completely hollow and couldn’t support its own weight, particularly when bending in light winds, let alone strong ones. It stood 90ft high and weighed several tons.

Once the work to make it safe—i.e., cut it down—was underway, other neighbours called out local Conservative councillor Andrew Hodson, who asked for the work to be halted while he checked with council personnel to ascertain ownership and the tree’s condition. We use the word “ownership” because a woman named Lorraine Rogers, who lives in a house 150 feet away, claimed the tree belonged to her. It turned out she didn’t own it—not surprisingly.

Later that day, Cllr Hodson called the resident and confirmed that the tree was owned by Mr Borbora. Mr Borbora also accepted ownership (via WhatsApp, so this is evidenced) but then stated he would not take action to make the tree safe, citing strong sentiment from other neighbours who wanted it to remain. At the time, a tree report confirmed the tree was dangerous and could fall at any moment. On the advice of his solicitor, the tree surgeon passed back liability and responsibility for the tree to its owner and those who had decided not to make it safe. Both Cllr Hodson and Mr Borbora were sent the report via WhatsApp, again providing evidence.

Cllr Hodson replied in a WhatsApp message saying he would forward the report to the owner, further supporting his verbal acknowledgment of ownership. However, no further action was taken to make the tree safe at that time, in early February 2024. The neighbour did nothing—and, in doing so, endangered lives.

A second tree survey/report in August 2024, six months later, concluded that the tree had decayed further. The hollow trunk had filled with water, worsening the internal rot with each rainfall. The tree, still standing at 90ft high, was now in an extremely dangerous condition. It overlooked the Dee Estuary, where high winds are common. The resident then contacted the council, urging them to compel the owner to remove the tree for public safety.

Council staff—referred to here as “the tree people”—confirmed by email (again, evidenced) that the tree was located on “unregistered land” at the corner of Mr Borbora’s property. This meant no one officially owned the land or the tree, and that the council therefore had responsibility for making it safe. So why did Cllr Hodson lie about the tree’s ownership to keep a 90ft high, lethal, and potentially fatal hazard in place—when he, as a council representative, had the duty to ensure it was removed?

By misrepresenting the facts and failing to act, Cllr Hodson arguably endangered lives and may have committed misconduct in public office. The council’s “tree people” also accused the resident of beginning tree removal and then abandoning it—clearly indicating that they had been misinformed. Who gave them this false information?

The resident responded by email, explaining what had actually occurred and providing evidence via WhatsApp messages, including one in which the “owner” stated he would not take action, and another in which Cllr Hodson confirmed he had passed the tree report to the owner. The “tree people” accepted the resident’s explanation.

It is also apparent from WhatsApp messages between Mr Borbora and the resident that he and the councillor conspired to acknowledge Mr Borbora’s ownership, then took no action to remove the tree. Both therefore share responsibility for leaving the tree in place, knowingly endangering lives.

The tree remained dangerously unstable for a further six to seven months until it was finally made safe. During that time, it could have fallen and killed one or more people at any moment. The lane where the tree stood is a well-used thoroughfare connecting the upper parts of Heswall to the Wirral Way. On some days, hundreds of people—families, walkers, horse riders, and dog walkers—use the path.

Why did Cllr Hodson lie to keep a dangerous, 90ft-high, potentially fatal tree in place? The resident is part of a mixed-race family living in an area known locally as “White Wirral.” Would the councillor have responded differently if the property in danger belonged to a white family? That’s for the reader to decide.

It is important to note that this situation is not reflective of Wirral Council as a whole, nor of the majority of hardworking councillors, officers, and staff. Rather, it concerns a small group of individuals. We hope that justice will now take its course.

That said, this is Wirral Council—a UK municipality that, as of Q1 2025, received a £28 million (approximately $35 million USD) central government bailout and is currently considering taxpayer-funded redundancies.