No homes for many Cork IPAS centre residents who have been granted leave to remain in Ireland

Large numbers of people living in Cork’s International Protection Accommodation Service (IPAS) centres have been asked to seek private accommodation but are unable to do so and remain in the centres longer than necessary, new reports have found.

Hiqa published two inspection reports into IPAS centres Ashbourne House in Cork city and Davis Lane Apartments in Mallow, which show that many of the beds there are being taken up by people who should be able to leave.

There were 65 residents living in Ashbourne House, but almost three quarters of them had been asked to look for private accommodation as they had been granted refugee status.

“While the centre provided accommodation to people seeking international protection, the inspectors found that 47 [72%] of residents had received refugee or subsidiary protection status and had received notice to seek private accommodation outside of the centre,” the report said.

“However, due to the lack of alternative accommodation available, this was not always possible.”

Davis Lane Apartments was contracted to accommodate up to 52 residents across 13 own-door apartments. At the time of inspection, there were 57 people living there. “While this was in excess of the official capacity of the centre, it was found that it was due to some families increasing in number while they lived in the centre, many of whom were seeking alternative accommodation having already received refugee or subsidiary protection status,” the report said.

The inspector added that: “Residents spoken with were satisfied with the size of their accommodation, and it was found that the additional occupancy had minimal impact on space as the additional residents were young children.”

Both centres’ reports were largely positive, with Ashbourne marked compliant in 19 areas, substantially compliant in six, partially compliant in five, and not compliant in one.

While there were positive findings identified during this inspection, and residents told inspectors they were happy living there, the inspectors “found areas for improvement, particularly in the further development of the role, guidance documents, and training for the reception officer, and in the development of internal systems for the oversight and monitoring of the service provided.”

They did not have a policy in place to identify, address, and respond to existing and emerging special reception needs of vulnerable residents, and further training was required both for staff and the reception officer.

The Davis Lane Apartments were compliant in 18 areas, substantially compliant in four, partially compliant in two, and not compliant in one.

In that centre at the time of inspection the provider “had not made a dedicated reception officer available”.

The inspectors added: “This was a known deficit on the provider’s part, who was in the process of recruiting a suitably qualified and experienced reception officer.”

Additionally, staff had received training in key areas, but not all staff had received training in the areas outlined in the standards. This had, however, been identified in a training assessment and there were plans in place to address any deficits.