The call nobody wants to make
Picture this. You introduced the buyer. Your colleague at another agency brought the listing. The two of you shook hands — literally or over WhatsApp — on a 50/50 split. The client signed Form F (MOU), the transfer went through at the trustee office, and now it is three weeks later. The other agency has been paid. You have not. When you chase, the story has changed: the split was “always” 60/40 in their favour, the listing agent did more work, the commission cheque was made out to their brokerage and they will “sort it out soon.”
That is a co-broke dispute. It happens every week in Dubai, across secondary sales, off-plan introductions, and Ejari rentals alike. The question is not whether to raise it — you must — but how to raise it without torching a relationship you need for the next deal, the one after that, and the referrals that come from both.
This article covers how to do that: the language to use, the sequence to follow, the documents that support you, and the moment when informal escalation becomes the right call.
Why co-broke disputes have a particular texture in Dubai
A commission dispute between two clients is uncomfortable. A co-broke dispute is different: both parties are licensed professionals who chose to work together and who will almost certainly encounter each other again on a shared listing portal, at a developer launch, or in a RERA-mandated training room.
Dubai does not impose a government-mandated fixed commission rate. The market has settled on widely accepted standards that almost every licensed brokerage follows, and those rates are recognised by RERA as customary and referenced in dispute resolution. That “customary” status is important: it means the rates are not written into legislation in a way that a judge can simply read off a page. They live in written agreements, WhatsApp threads, broker-to-broker emails, and signed agency forms — or they do not live anywhere at all, which is where the trouble starts.
Every real estate agent operating in Dubai must hold a valid RERA licence. This is not optional. An unlicensed agent cannot legally collect commission, and any commission paid to an unlicensed agent is not protected under UAE law if a dispute arises. Both agencies being properly licensed matters here — it means both sides have regulatory standing and, crucially, something to lose if the dispute becomes a formal complaint.
Commission should always be paid by cheque made out to the brokerage, not to the individual agent personally. This is a RERA requirement and it creates a paper trail that protects both parties if a dispute arises later. When both brokerages are legitimate, the money moves from the brokerage that collected it to the brokerage that is owed its share — and that movement requires goodwill, instructions, and often a manager’s sign-off. That chain of actions is where payment stalls.
How a split actually gets agreed — and why the proof often does not exist
In an ideal deal, the co-broke arrangement is written down before anyone shows a client the property. In practice, it frequently is not.
Here is the common pattern on a secondary resale. The listing agency holds Form A — the seller-to-broker agreement that defines the listing terms and the listing agent’s commission. The buyer’s agent holds Form B — the engagement agreement with their buyer. Form A, Form B, and Form F work together as a single contractual framework around a transaction. Form A records the relationship between the seller and the broker, defining the listing terms and the broker’s commission. Form B defines the engagement between the buyer and the broker. Once the buyer and seller agree on commercial terms through their brokers, Form F becomes the central buyer–seller contract, recording the property details, price, deposit, payment schedule, and completion conditions that govern the transaction.
Form F serves as the definitive agreement between the buyer and seller, capturing every material term of the deal: the property details, the agreed price, the payment schedule, the transfer timeline, penalty clauses, and the agent’s commission. Once signed by all three parties — buyer, seller, and agent — Form F is registered with the DLD through the agent’s brokerage. This registration gives the document its legal weight. It is not just a private contract between two individuals — it is a regulated instrument recognised by the government.
Note the phrase “the agent’s commission.” Form F typically names the total commission the buyer or seller pays, and it names the brokerage — singular. What it does not automatically capture is how two separate brokerages agreed to split that commission between themselves. That inter-agency split is a separate agreement, and in too many deals it exists only as a voice note, a casual WhatsApp message, or a handshake at a viewing.
Form F is signed after the initial agreement is reached but before the ownership transfer takes place at the DLD trustee office. Agent commission — typically 2% of the sale price — becomes legally due upon Form F signing. That moment — when the client’s obligation to pay crystallises — is precisely when the uncertainty about the internal split becomes a live problem. One brokerage collects; the other waits. And waiting is where relationships break down.
On Ejari rental deals, the dynamic is similar. The 5% rental commission rate is not written into Dubai’s tenancy law; it is the figure RERA recognises as customary and the one referenced when a commission dispute reaches the Rental Disputes Center. Because it is customary, it is negotiable — particularly on higher-rent units or in slower letting months. On a co-broke rental, that negotiable figure then has to be divided again between two agencies — another agreement that often goes undocumented.
On off-plan deals, the picture is different again. On most primary off-plan launches, the developer pays the broker, so the buyer usually pays no commission directly unless agreed in writing. When two agencies co-broke on an off-plan introduction, the developer’s commission comes out of its own budget and flows to the registered introducing brokerage. Buyers’ funds are safeguarded in RERA-regulated escrow accounts for off-plan projects, — which is a buyer protection mechanism, not an agent payment mechanism. The co-broke split on an off-plan deal is entirely a broker-to-broker arrangement, outside the escrow framework, and even more likely to be informal than on a secondary deal.
Before the disagreement: what you should have in writing
The cleanest way to raise a disagreement is to have the agreed terms already recorded somewhere you can point to. If you are reading this article mid-dispute, that ship has sailed — but it is worth naming what good practice looks like so the pattern stops here.
A written co-broke agreement, ideally signed, covering:
- The property address and approximate deal value
- The total commission being charged (e.g., 2% on the sale price, plus 5% VAT on the fee)
- The split percentage between the two brokerages (e.g., 50/50 or 60/40)
- Which brokerage collects from the client
- The date and mechanism by which the other brokerage gets paid
- A point of contact at each brokerage authorised to confirm the arrangement
This does not need to be a formal legal contract. A shared email thread in which both agency principals explicitly confirm the terms is sufficient to establish the agreement in any subsequent negotiation or formal process. A WhatsApp message is better than nothing, provided it is clear and both sides have replied to confirm.
If a commission dispute arises, RERA’s Rental Disputes Settlement Centre handles the case. Having a written agreement is essential to win any dispute. That principle applies equally to agent-to-agent splits as it does to agent-to-client commission arrangements. Without writing, you are arguing about who remembers the conversation correctly.
Raising the disagreement: the sequence that protects the relationship
When payment has stalled or the other agency disputes the split, there is a temptation to either go silent and let resentment build, or fire off an aggressive message that ends the working relationship. Neither serves you. Here is the sequence that gives you the best chance of getting paid without burning anything down.
Step one: check your own position first
Before you contact the other agency, spend twenty minutes gathering everything you have:
- The WhatsApp or email thread in which the split was discussed
- Any co-broke agreement, even an informal one
- Form F or the equivalent document showing the total commission due
- Any text message or voice note in which the other party acknowledged your involvement
- Ejari registration records if it is a rental deal
- The date the client paid commission, confirmed if possible
Know exactly what you are owed in dirhams, including VAT. If the deal was a secondary sale at 2% commission on AED 2,000,000, real estate agent commission in Dubai is 2% of the property purchase price, regulated by RERA. On a AED 2 million apartment, you pay AED 40,000 plus 5% VAT (AED 2,000), totalling AED 42,000. Your share of that is whatever the agreed split produces. Know that number before you make the call. Going in vague about what you are owed signals weakness.
Step two: the private, professional conversation
Contact the other agency’s point of contact — the agent you dealt with, or their manager if you have a relationship with both — and keep the tone factual and collaborative. Not: “You owe me money and I want it now.” Instead: “We need to close off the split on [property address]. Can we get on a call today to confirm the amount and the payment timeline?”
This framing does several things. It treats the matter as an open administrative item rather than an accusation. It gives the other side a route to pay without having to admit fault. And it creates a clear written record — your message and their reply — of the date you raised it formally.
If they dispute the split percentage itself, say: “I want to make sure we’re working from the same conversation. Can you walk me through what you understood the agreement to be?” Then listen. Do not argue on the first call. Their version matters because it tells you what the gap actually is: a misunderstanding about a percentage, a dispute about whether you introduced the client first, a disagreement about whether the deal qualifies for the arrangement you discussed. Each of those gaps has a different resolution path.
Step three: confirm everything in writing immediately after the call
The moment the call ends, send a summary email or WhatsApp message to the other agency: “Thanks for speaking. To confirm our understanding from today’s call: [the deal], [the split you discussed or the point of disagreement], [the next step you agreed on], [the date you will follow up if there is no response].”
This single step changes the dynamic significantly. If they agreed something on the call, it is now in writing and hard to walk back. If they disagreed, you have a documented record of the date and nature of the dispute, which supports any subsequent escalation. Most importantly, it shows that you are approaching this professionally and systematically — which creates a different kind of pressure than an aggressive WhatsApp at midnight.
Step four: give a clear, reasonable deadline
If the first conversation does not produce a payment date, follow up with a written message that sets one: “If we cannot confirm the payment timeline by [specific date, typically 5–7 business days], I’ll need to escalate this through our respective agency managers and, if necessary, through formal channels.”
The word “escalate” is important here. It signals seriousness without specificity about what escalation means. It gives the other agency a chance to resolve the matter before it becomes a formal process that their management and potentially RERA need to know about. Most professional agencies will prefer to settle internally.
When professional channels come into the picture
If the direct conversation does not resolve the matter, the next step is agency-to-agency escalation — meaning principal to principal, or brokerage manager to brokerage manager. This is still informal but significantly more serious. It signals that the matter has moved beyond the individual agents and that the agencies’ reputations and RERA licensing relationship are now part of the conversation.
Document every communication before this conversation happens. A brief timeline — date you agreed the split, date the deal closed, date you first raised the issue, date of each follow-up, date of each response or non-response — is the clearest way to present your position.
Parties are strongly encouraged to discuss the issue directly and document their communications. Dubai’s DLD offers an online amicable settlement service where disputing parties can file for conciliation by a judge-approved mediator. If an agreement is reached, it becomes an enforceable settlement without full litigation. Mediation can save time and money while preserving relationships.
This mediation route — through DLD’s Amicable Settlement Centre — is worth knowing about. The DLD Amicable Settlement Centre mediators are a proficient authority in settling disputes between the parties without any costs. The authority has access to all the database pertaining to property registered with DLD and holds extensive experience in resolving such disputes. Any decision passed by ASC will be binding and enforceable on the parties, as it is mutually agreed by way of settlement.
The DLD’s Amicable Settlement Centre sits before litigation and before a formal RERA regulatory complaint. For a broker-to-broker commission dispute, this is typically the right first formal step: it is structured, it is informed by DLD’s access to transaction records, and if it produces an agreement, that agreement is binding without the cost and time of a court case.
In Dubai, it is essential to distinguish between a regulatory complaint and a rental dispute. Regulatory complaints about real estate violations are handled by the DLD through RERA, mainly via the “Real estate violations complaints” service. These complaints cover breaches of real estate regulations and negative practices by licensed real estate companies and brokers.
A formal RERA complaint — through the Real Estate Violation System — is the appropriate route if the other agency’s conduct crosses into regulatory territory: refusing to pay commission that is clearly documented and owed, acting in bad faith after a formal process, or conduct that constitutes a breach of RERA’s standards for licensed brokers. It is a serious step, and it should follow failed attempts at direct and mediated resolution, not precede them.
Language to use and language to avoid
The words matter as much as the sequence. Here is a practical guide.
Use:
- “Close off” — as in, “let’s close off the split.” Neutral, administrative, professional.
- “Confirm our understanding” — invites the other side to clarify rather than defend.
- “Walk me through what you understood” — creates space for a misunderstanding to surface without an accusation.
- “Our next step, if we cannot agree by [date], is…” — states consequences without threats.
- “My records show…” — positions you as factual rather than emotional.
Avoid:
- “You owe me” — correct, but inflammatory as an opener.
- “This is theft / fraud / dishonest” — even if you believe it, this closes the conversation.
- “Everyone knows you do this” — personal and unprovable; damages you more than them.
- “I’ll take you to court” — leads with the most nuclear option; gives the other side nothing to do except fight back.
- Group messages or CC’ing uninvolved parties — a dispute aired in a group chat becomes market gossip, which harms both agencies.
The goal of the language is to keep one door open: the door through which the other agency can pay you without a formal process. That door closes the moment the conversation becomes adversarial enough that pride takes over.
The particular complication of the post-dated cheque
Rental commissions in Dubai are often collected alongside rent cheques, which may be post-dated. A tenant who hands over six cheques for rent plus one commission cheque has, in effect, scheduled when the money lands. If the listing agency collected the commission cheque and it has not cleared yet, that is a different conversation from one where the cheque has cleared and the money is sitting in their account.
Ask: when did the commission cheque clear? If it has not cleared, agree now — in writing — on exactly when and how your share will be transferred. If it has cleared and payment to you has still not happened, the matter is straightforward: the money exists, it is owed, and the delay is a choice.
Similarly, on resale deals, the timing of commission payment matters. This is typically due upon signing the Memorandum of Understanding (Form F), though some agents collect at the point of title transfer. If there is a genuine disagreement about whether commission has been collected yet — because the transfer is still pending or the mortgage is delayed — that is context that matters. Get clarity on it before assuming bad faith.
What the dispute is actually costing you
There is a habit among agents of absorbing a bad co-broke outcome and moving on without raising it, on the theory that the relationship is worth more than the disputed amount. Sometimes that is right. More often, it is a miscalculation.
When you absorb a disputed split without raising it, several things happen. The other agency has no reason to change their behaviour. Your own agency has less money to pay you. And you carry a sense of injustice into every subsequent interaction with that agency, which shapes your behaviour in ways that are less professional than an open conversation would have been.
The more useful question is not “is the relationship worth more than the money?” but “is raising this professionally, in the way described above, actually likely to harm the relationship?” In most cases, a professional, documented, non-accusatory approach does not harm working relationships. It establishes them on a clearer footing. Agents who know you will raise a dispute calmly and factually are more careful with you — not less.
The deeper structural problem: a split agreed after payment is always fragile
Every step in this article — the documentation, the conversation sequences, the escalation paths — is dealing with the consequences of a split that was either not agreed in writing upfront, or agreed but paid in a way that created a waiting period for one party.
The root cause of most co-broke disputes in Dubai is simple: the client pays one brokerage, and that brokerage then has to decide — voluntarily, and on its own timeline — to pay the other. During that interval, priorities shift, cash flow pressures appear, memories of the verbal agreement become conveniently imprecise, and the agent who did the work waits.
The moment the commission is received by one party and not yet distributed to the other, there is a structural imbalance of power. The collecting party has the money. The other party has a claim. Those are not equivalent positions, and disputes happen in that gap.
There is a principle that eliminates this gap entirely, and it applies at the point when the co-broke arrangement is set up, not after the deal closes. When the split is agreed in writing before the first viewing, and when the payment mechanism ensures that both brokerages receive their share at the same time — simultaneously, out of the same transaction, with no intermediary holding period — the gap disappears. There is no waiting, so there is no dispute about the wait. There is no collecting-then-distributing, so there is no moment where one party holds money that belongs to another.
If a commission dispute arises, RERA’s Rental Disputes Settlement Centre handles the case. Having a written agreement is essential to win any dispute. That principle — written agreement — is necessary but not sufficient on its own. A written agreement that still routes all money through one party first, then relies on that party’s goodwill to distribute, is better than nothing but still creates the interval where most disputes are born.
The professional standard to work toward is: the split agreed and signed before the client is introduced. The payment confirmed and executed at the same moment for both agencies. When the deal closes, both sides are paid. The relationship continues on equal footing.
That outcome is not a luxury for well-resourced agencies. It is simply the practice of treating the co-broke arrangement with the same contractual seriousness you would give any other binding commitment in a regulated property market. In a city where the Real Estate Regulatory Agency was established under Law 16 of 2007 and operates as the regulatory arm within DLD, with licensing, oversight, and formal dispute resolution infrastructure behind it, there is no reason for an inter-agency agreement to be less documented than the deal it is attached to.
The agents who rarely end up in co-broke disputes are not the ones with the most leverage. They are the ones who insist on clarity before the first viewing, confirmation before the MOU, and payment at the same moment the client pays — not after.
That is the standard. Every co-broke arrangement, every time.
