The deal that looked done
Two agents bring a buyer and a seller together on a three-bedroom in Business Bay. Both worked the deal — viewings, negotiations, two rounds of price reduction, a near-collapse over the NOC timeline. They shook hands on a 50/50 split of the combined commission. The buyer’s cheque cleared into the listing agency’s account on transfer day. The listing agent’s brokerage took the full amount and promised to wire the co-broker’s half “as soon as accounts processes it.” Three weeks passed. Then came the email that changed everything: the listing agency decided unilaterally that the split was 70/30, not 50/50, because their agent had done “more of the work.” No Form I. No written agreement. Nothing to argue with except a WhatsApp message that read “sounds good mate.”
That story has been told in offices across Dubai in several variations. The property changes — sometimes it is a Marina apartment, sometimes a villa in Arabian Ranches. The deal size changes. But the structure of the loss is always the same: one agent extended trust where a document should have gone instead, and the goodwill they offered was repaid with a revised number and a take-it-or-leave-it attitude.
This article is about exactly that gap — the space between a verbal agreement and a signed commitment — and what it actually costs you when nothing is in writing.
Why Dubai’s framework already tells you what to do
The regulatory architecture in Dubai is unusually clear about this. Form A (listing agreement), Form B (buyer representation agreement), Form F (memorandum of understanding), and Form I (final commission agreement) are the standard RERA forms that govern the agency relationship and commission obligations in a transaction. Each one covers a specific relationship; each one exists precisely because informal arrangements create disputes.
Commission agreements between agents — for instance, when a buyer’s agent and a seller’s agent split a fee on a co-broke deal — are governed by RERA Form I, which must be formally signed before any commission is disbursed. This prevents the informal arrangements that create disputes in less regulated markets and gives both parties a documented, enforceable position.
Form I is an agreement between two agents who act on behalf of the seller and the buyer. The main goal of this form is to protect the lists and rights of the agent and the agents’ clients, to ensure a professional relationship between the two agents as well as to clearly spell out the distribution of commission and to eliminate any possible manipulation in the future. Form I is mainly applicable when several agents are involved in one joint transaction concerning the sale or lease of real estate.
That language — “eliminate any possible manipulation” — is doing heavy lifting. It acknowledges what experienced agents already know: that the incentive to reinterpret a verbal split only appears after the money is in one party’s account. At that point, the agent who did not get the Form I signed is arguing from memory against someone who controls the cheque.
Form I clearly defines how the total commission will be divided between the listing agent and the buyer’s agent. It ensures both agents adhere to RERA’s code of ethics while collaborating. It specifies which agent is responsible for particular tasks, such as coordinating with the developer or attending the final transfer at the Trustee office. By having a signed Form I, both agents are legally bound to cooperate in the best interest of their clients, preventing potential “poaching” of clients or disputes over fees.
None of this is complicated. The problem is not that agents do not know the forms exist. The problem is that in the momentum of a live deal — a buyer who wants to move fast, a seller who is already nervous, a transfer date that needs to be locked in — the paperwork between agents feels like a speed bump. So agents skip it, or they defer it, or they agree verbally and assume the other side is operating in good faith. Sometimes they are. Often enough that the habit persists. But the deals where the other side is not operating in good faith are the deals that blow up your quarter.
What “nothing in writing” actually looks like in practice
The split that was never confirmed
An agent on the buyer side calls a listing agent at 9pm. The buyer wants to move before a competing offer lands. The listing agent says “yeah, standard 50/50, let’s go.” The buyer’s agent sends the client into the deal, negotiates the price down, manages the mortgage pre-approval confirmation, chases the seller’s NOC. Everyone is focused on closing. The Form I never gets signed because there was never a moment that felt right to pause and insist on it.
Then the commission arrives at the listing agency. A verbal commission split agreement is not enforceable under RERA regulations. If a dispute arises between two agents over who is owed what, the agent without a signed Form I is in a very weak position.
“Very weak position” is the professional way of saying: you have almost nothing. A WhatsApp message can be disputed, reinterpreted, or claimed to have been conditional on something you were not aware of. A phone call is your word against theirs. A verbal agreement that commission will be X percentage holds very little weight if a dispute arises, and disputes over commission are not uncommon in a market where transaction values are high.
The “we’ll sort it out after” delay
A slightly different version: the split was verbally agreed, and it even appears in a message thread, but the agent on the co-broke side accepts payment after the fact — usually a lower amount than agreed — because by the time the dispute crystallises, the deal is closed, the client is happy, and the path of least resistance is to take what is offered and move on.
This is the tax that goodwill imposes. The agent rationalises it as “saving the relationship.” What they are actually doing is subsidising someone else’s margin with their own labour and confirming that the same thing can happen next time. The second deal with that agency often has an even worse outcome.
The post-dated cheque problem in rental co-brokes
Rental transactions introduce another layer. A landlord pays commission with a post-dated cheque for next month. The listing agent promised the referring agent their share verbally. The cheque arrives, it clears, and the referring agent is still waiting. Now the listed deal is closed, the client has their Ejari-registered tenancy, and the only outstanding item is an informal debt between two agents at two different agencies — with no paper trail attached to the specific transaction.
Commission disputes are fact-specific — who introduced whom, what was signed, what was paid. In a rental dispute with no Form I and no written referral agreement, that fact-specificity works against you. RERA and the DLD cannot award you a commission share they cannot verify was ever agreed.
The cost calculation most agents don’t do
When agents think about losing a commission split, they think about one deal. That is the wrong frame.
Think instead about what that loss actually represents in aggregate. A Dubai secondary market transaction at the typical 2% commission rate — and yes, Dubai does not have a government-mandated fixed commission rate, but the market has settled on widely accepted standards that almost every licensed brokerage follows — on a property in the AED 2–3 million range means a gross commission of AED 40,000 to AED 60,000 before VAT. A 50/50 split means the co-broker’s share should be AED 20,000 to AED 30,000. Lose that split on two deals a year and you have given away the equivalent of a month or more of productive revenue.
Since the introduction of VAT in the UAE in January 2018, a 5% Value Added Tax applies to real estate brokerage services. VAT is charged on the commission amount, not the property price. That means the brokerage must be VAT-registered and provide a valid tax invoice. In a co-broke dispute where no Form I was signed, the VAT invoice — which can only be issued by the brokerage collecting the money — becomes another piece of evidence that the full commission went to one side. The agent on the co-broke side often does not even have a document proving they were entitled to any portion of it.
The goodwill cost, in other words, is not abstract. It is a specific amount of money that left your account — or rather, never arrived in it — because a form was not signed before the client paid.
Where disputes go, and why documentation decides them
If a commission dispute escalates, agents file a complaint with RERA through the Dubai REST app or the DLD website. RERA will review the evidence — Form A, Form B, communication records, viewing confirmations — and issue a ruling. If either party disagrees with RERA’s ruling, the case can be escalated to the Dubai Courts.
Notice what RERA is reviewing: forms, records, viewing confirmations. Not WhatsApp screenshots of a verbal agreement. Not a phone log. Not a colleague who remembers a conversation. The system is built around documented evidence, because the system was built by a regulator that has seen what happens when documentation is absent.
Commission disputes are fact-specific — who introduced whom, what was signed, what was paid. Each of those three questions has a clean answer when documentation exists, and a contested answer when it does not. The agent with the document wins the majority of these disputes. The agent without it faces a process that is expensive in time, energy, and emotional bandwidth — even if the underlying claim is entirely legitimate.
Preparing all documentation related to your case — contracts, identification, payment proofs, and communication records — is the starting point for any formal complaint. The regulatory body reviews such cases and may request mediation between both parties. If mediation fails, the matter can escalate to a tribunal or court for a final decision.
Mediation takes time. Court proceedings take more. Meanwhile, the deal is closed, the client has moved on, and you are spending hours you should be spending on your next transaction on a dispute that a one-page Form I would have prevented.
The off-plan dimension
Off-plan deals add a different wrinkle. When a developer pays agent commission — and in off-plan, buyers usually pay 0% — the developer pays the agent’s commission directly — the commission flows from the developer’s sales team to the registered agency. Developer commissions can run higher than the secondary market standard, with developers typically offering a commission ranging from 2% to 8% of the property value, depending on the project and market conditions.
In that structure, the referring or co-broke agent’s share is entirely dependent on the inter-agency arrangement — and the developer will pay the registered agency, full stop. Whatever split was verbally agreed between the two agencies is an entirely internal matter. The developer is not a party to it and will not mediate it.
This is where the goodwill problem compounds. An off-plan co-broke with no written inter-agency agreement is an arrangement where one party has all the money and the other has a handshake. The developer has discharged its obligation; the registered agency now gets to decide how it interprets “what we agreed.” Without a signed document that predates the commission payment, there is nothing enforceable.
And note the regulatory logic: a developer cannot advertise or promote off-plan units without written approval from the department and must not deal with unregistered brokers. The off-plan ecosystem is heavily document-driven at every level. The only place where documentation consistently breaks down is in the informal agent-to-agent split — precisely the place where the largest discretionary sums are at stake.
How goodwill actually gets weaponised
It would be easier if the agents who benefit from unwritten splits were obviously bad actors. They are usually not. Most of the time, the sequence is subtler.
The listing agent extended a genuine invitation to co-broke. They meant the split they mentioned. At the time of closing, though, the split is just a number in their head — and the commission is now sitting in their agency’s account. The finance director asks what the Form I says. There is no Form I. The listing agent goes back to their manager. The manager — who has no relationship with the co-broker, whose bonus is partly tied to revenue, and who was never party to the verbal agreement — suggests that the standard referral rate is lower than what was mentioned on the phone.
The listing agent is now caught between a relationship they value and an instruction from above. They send a message that opens with “look, I really want to keep this professional between us” and closes with a revised number. The goodwill that was extended at 9pm on a live deal is now the only currency the co-broker has — and it is not legal tender at RERA.
In large or complex deals, the commission split between agencies can be negotiated between brokerages before the deal closes. Agents are required under RERA rules to disclose their commission arrangement to all parties. That disclosure obligation is not a bureaucratic nicety. It is a structural protection that exists because the regulator knows that money, once received, is harder to share than money that is committed on paper before anyone receives it.
The Form I conversation no one wants to have
The reason Form I does not get signed is almost always social, not logistical. Agents worry that asking for documentation signals distrust. They worry it will slow down a fast-moving deal. They worry the other agent will be offended.
Consider the alternative framing. Asking for a Form I before a deal proceeds is not an accusation. It is a statement that you take both your work and the other agent’s work seriously enough to protect it properly. The agent who refuses to sign a Form I on a co-broke — or who deflects, delays, or invents reasons why it is not necessary right now — is telling you something about how they intend to behave when the commission arrives. That information is worth having early.
In fast-moving markets like Dubai, agents sometimes proceed on trust or a phone call agreement when time is short. This almost always creates problems if the deal becomes complicated.
The conversation is simple: “Before we proceed, let’s get the Form I signed so we’re both protected. I want to make sure this deal goes through cleanly for both sides.” Any agent operating in good faith will agree immediately. The Form I protects them too — it means the split cannot later be reduced by their own management because the commitment is documented.
Making Form I a standard part of any co-brokerage arrangement is not excessive caution. It is basic professional practice.
What happens when the money is already in one account
This is the hardest situation. The deal closed. The commission was paid. The Form I was never signed. And now the other agency is offering less than what was verbally agreed.
The practical options narrow considerably at this point.
Direct negotiation first. Put the agreed split in writing — reconstruct the agreement from whatever messages, emails, or records exist — and send a formal written request to the agency, not just the agent. Address it to the brokerage, not the individual. This creates a paper trail and signals that you are treating it as a professional and potentially regulatory matter, not just a personal grievance.
RERA complaint. The Dubai Land Department regulates registered brokers and handles complaints about broker conduct — this is the route for unregistered practice, double-dipping, misrepresentation, or fee disputes with a brokerage. A complaint about a co-broke split dispute can be filed, but without a signed Form I, your evidential position is weak. What you do have — WhatsApp records, email chains, viewing records, any documentation of your role in the deal — must be compiled comprehensively before filing.
Calibrate the relationship. If an agency has done this once with documentation that thin, they will do it again. The decision to continue co-broking with them without signed documentation in place is a choice to repeat the same risk. Some agents continue the relationship because the listings are good and they decide that taking a haircut occasionally is the cost of access. That is a business decision, not a moral failing — but it should be made consciously, not by default.
The harder lesson is that none of these options are as effective as the Form I that should have been signed at the start.
The split should be locked before the client pays
There is a sequencing principle at work in every clean co-broke deal: the commission split between agents must be agreed, in writing, before the client’s money moves.
Once the client has paid — once the commission cheque has been handed over at the trustee office, or the bank transfer has landed, or the post-dated cheques are in someone’s filing cabinet — the dynamic changes completely. The agency holding the money has leverage that did not exist before. Even if they intend to honour the split, every day that passes before it is distributed is a day during which that intention can be revised, de-prioritised, or overridden by someone with authority over their accounts department.
Commission agreements between agents — for instance, when a buyer’s agent and a seller’s agent split a fee on a co-broke deal — are governed by RERA Form I, which must be formally signed before any commission is disbursed.
Before any commission is disbursed. That phrase is the whole principle in six words. The form exists to move the binding commitment to before the money flows, not after. The only reason to do it any other way is convenience in the moment — and the cost of that convenience, when things go wrong, is paid entirely by the agent who extended goodwill without getting a signature.
The ideal outcome is not just a signed Form I in advance. It is a structure where all parties are paid at the same moment — where the commission does not sit in one agency’s account for days or weeks while the other party waits on a promise. That simultaneity removes the leverage gap entirely. There is no holding account, no “we’ll process it next week,” no revised interpretation arriving after the money has been received and counted. The split is committed in writing up front, and the money moves to all parties at once.
That outcome requires deliberate setup before the deal closes. It requires the kind of professional discipline that some agents resist because it feels like it adds friction. What it actually does is remove the friction — the friction of a dispute, a RERA filing, a revised number, a ruined relationship, and a month of revenue that went to someone else’s bottom line.
The principle that makes the rest of this unnecessary
A Dubai co-broke done right looks like this: two licensed agents, both with valid RERA broker cards, agree on a split before any client money moves. They sign Form I. Both agencies are named. The split is explicit. Neither party needs to trust the other’s goodwill, because neither party is relying on it. The documentation does the work that goodwill was never designed to do.
The forms exist because Dubai’s regulator understood, from the earliest years of market development, that high-value transactions conducted on verbal agreements between agents produce disputes at volume. RERA forms standardise property transactions by streamlining each stage of the process, from advertising listings to finalising sales agreements. These legally mandated documents clarify the obligations of buyers, sellers, and agents, reducing ambiguity and promoting compliance with Dubai’s real estate regulations.
Goodwill between agents is a real and valuable thing. It makes deals move faster. It makes difficult negotiations easier. It builds the kind of reputation that gets you called first when a listing comes to market. None of that goes away when you insist on documentation. What goes away is the vulnerability — the window of time between a verbal agreement and a signed one, during which everything you worked for sits exposed to someone else’s change of mind.
Verbal agreements are extremely difficult to enforce in Dubai. That is not a criticism of the market or the people in it. It is a structural fact about how the legal and regulatory framework operates. Build your practice around that fact, not against it. Sign the form before the client pays. Insist on it every time, with every agency, regardless of the relationship. The agents who never have commission disputes are not the ones who extended the most goodwill — they are the ones who never let goodwill substitute for a signature.
