---
title: "What happens when an agent switches agency mid-transaction"
description: "A plain-speaking breakdown of who owns the deal, who gets paid, and how to prevent the disputes that follow when a Dubai agent changes brokerage mid-transaction."
category: "disputes-settlements"
readingTime: 12
---
## The Deal Is Live, the Agent Is Gone

Picture this: you are a buyer's agent. You have spent six weeks on a secondary-market sale in Dubai Marina. The Form F is signed, the seller has their NOC application in, the manager's cheques are prepared, and the DLD transfer appointment is two weeks away. Then you get a WhatsApp message from the listing agent. She is no longer at her brokerage. She has moved to a competitor and wants to finish the deal from there. Her former agency is now making noise about being owed the commission because the listing agreement — a Form A — is registered under their office registration number. The buyer just wants the transfer to happen and does not want to know whose internal politics are disrupting a deal they have been waiting months to close.

That is not a hypothetical edge case. Real estate brokers move between agencies frequently, and stale registrations are common. In a market where deals can run for sixty to ninety days, where post-dated cheques are handed over weeks before a transfer, and where a single transaction can involve two or more agencies, one agent's departure can turn a routine closing into a three-way standoff. The standoff hurts everyone: the client, the co-operating agent on the other side, and both agencies. Understanding the mechanics of why this happens — and how to prevent it from happening on your deals — is what this article is about.

## Why Commission Sits With the Agency, Not the Agent

This is the starting point, and it trips up newer agents constantly. In Dubai, only an agent holding an active RERA broker card, working under a brokerage with a valid Dubai trade license, can lawfully collect commission, and the listing must carry a valid Trakheesi permit.

That sentence has two moving parts that matter enormously when an agent switches firms. First, the agent needs a valid broker card — their individual BRN (Broker Registration Number). Second, they need to be operating under a brokerage with a live licence. In Dubai, representation is documented on a RERA form generated through the Trakheesi permit system, and the form — not a viewing or a phone call — is what establishes the agent's entitlement to a fee.

So when a listing agent signs a Form A (the seller's listing agreement), that form is tied to the brokerage's office registration number, not just to that individual agent's BRN. The brokerage is the contracting party with the seller. The individual agent operates under that umbrella. When the agent leaves, the Form A does not follow them. The contract stays with the agency that issued it.

This is not the agency being proprietary for sport. It is how the legal framework works. The brokerage remains liable to the seller for the representation obligations in that Form A. If the deal collapses and the seller sues, they sue the brokerage — not the individual agent who has since resigned. That liability is real, and it is why brokerages do not simply hand signed representation agreements to departing staff.

The same principle applies on the buyer's side. A Form B (the buyer's agency agreement) is signed by the buyer and the brokerage — not by the individual agent who sat across from them at the coffee meeting. When that agent moves to a new firm, the Form B that was signed under the old firm's ORN does not automatically transfer.

## Where the Split Was — and Where It Now Isn't

Every Dubai agent who has worked a co-broke deal knows how the split conversation is supposed to go. When two agents are involved in a transaction — a listing agent representing the seller and a buyer's agent representing the buyer — the commission needs to be split between them, and how that split works determines a lot about how each agent behaves during the deal.

The most common structure in Dubai is what is called a co-brokerage arrangement. The buyer pays 2% commission to their agent. The seller pays 2% commission to their agent. Each side pays their own agent directly. In that clean, four-party structure, an agent switching firms creates friction but does not automatically break the deal: the buyer is paying their agent's brokerage, and the seller is paying the listing brokerage. Each side has a clear payment path, regardless of which individual human processed the paperwork.

The problem arises when the commission structure is less clean. In many real Dubai deals, one side agrees to pay a single combined commission, or the two agencies have verbally agreed to share a single fee. In those situations, in transactions where both the seller and buyer are represented by different agents, a Form I agreement between the seller's agent and the buyer's agent clarifies the commission structure and how it will be divided between the two parties. Form I ensures transparency in agent compensation and prevents disputes over commission sharing, creating a clear framework for cooperation.

When that Form I does not exist — or when it exists but the agent who was party to the verbal split agreement has now left — the two agencies are left staring at each other with no agreed paperwork. One agency may claim the full split because they now hold the only signed form. The other may argue their departing agent's handshake deal should be honoured. Neither position is provable without documentation, and neither client wants to be caught in the middle of that argument at transfer time.

This is where most agent-switch disputes actually originate: not in bad faith, but in the absence of a written co-broke agreement between the two agencies before the deal moved forward.

## The BRN Transfer Problem

When an agent moves between brokerages, their individual BRN transfers with them — the BRN belongs to the person, not the company. What does not transfer are the signed representation forms issued under the old brokerage's ORN. Every legitimate broker in Dubai carries a Broker Registration Number, or BRN, on an active RERA broker card. That card updates to reflect the new employer, but the old employer's signed forms remain under the old employer's account in the Trakheesi system.

This matters practically when the listing agent moves mid-deal and tries to take the listing with them. If the Form A for the property they were marketing was issued under their former brokerage's ORN, that brokerage has the registered listing. Any advertising the departing agent now does for the same property under their new brokerage's Trakheesi permit would require a fresh Form A, signed by the seller again. If the seller has not signed a new Form A with the new agency, the agent has no lawful listing to advertise. If they advertise it anyway — as sometimes happens — they are operating outside the documented framework and the listing has no permit backing it.

For the agent on the other side of the deal — the buyer's agent or the landlord's agent — this creates a specific risk. Commission disputes are among the most common complaints filed with RERA. If the agent they have been co-broking with turns out to be working outside their registered framework because they have switched agencies and are trying to close the deal informally, the other party's agency is exposed. They have co-operated on a deal where the counter-agent's standing is unclear. When the commission dispute lands, they will need to prove their own clean documentation to avoid being caught up in the other agency's problem.

The check is simple: before you co-broke with anyone, confirm their BRN is active and that their agency's ORN matches the form in front of you. Ask for the agent's BRN and the brokerage's office registration number, and verify both through the Dubai REST app or the DLD website. In a live deal where you have already been working together and the agent then switches, re-verify. The paperwork needs to reflect who is actually representing who at the point of completion.

## The Rental Deal: A Slightly Different Wrinkle

In a rental transaction, the mechanics shift slightly but the underlying issue is the same. The commission is customarily around 5% of the annual rent paid by the tenant, a figure RERA recognises as customary and the one referenced when a commission dispute reaches the Rental Disputes Centre. The agent who introduced the tenant to the unit and concluded the lease is the one entitled to that fee. The Ejari registration — the mandatory tenancy registration with the Dubai Land Department — names the parties to the tenancy: landlord, tenant, and the brokerage that facilitated it.

When an agent switches agency during a rental deal, the same structural issue applies. If a landlord has signed a listing instruction with Brokerage A and the agent closes the deal after moving to Brokerage B, the landlord's agreement is still with Brokerage A. The commission invoice needs to come from Brokerage A or from whoever the landlord's signed instruction designates. To ensure that an agent receives commission, it is imperative that a contract is signed and registered with the DLD. The contract should also specify the names of the agents, the property details, and the conditions for the provision of real estate services.

If the agent at Brokerage B sends a commission invoice from their new agency's account, the landlord has every reason to question it. They signed an agreement with a different entity. The landlord has not defaulted on anything — they received the service and the tenancy is in place — but the question of which company to pay becomes genuinely muddy.

For rental deals, there is also the question of the post-dated cheques. Rental cheques for the tenancy itself go to the landlord. The agent's commission cheque is separate and goes to the brokerage. If a tenant handed over a commission cheque to a specific brokerage — as happens when commission is paid at signing — and that cheque is sitting uncashed while the agent switches firms, the brokerage still has a valid claim to present it. The tenant's obligation to the original agency does not evaporate because the individual agent left.

## Off-Plan: Where the Developer Pays, But the Paper Trail Still Matters

In an off-plan transaction, when buying off-plan from a developer, whether through an agent or directly at the sales office, the commission is built into the developer's cost structure and paid to the agent by the developer. The buyer pays no separate commission. The developer pays the selling brokerage directly, typically from their marketing budget, and the developer maintains their own records of which brokerage introduced which buyer.

This does not make the agent-switch problem disappear. It just moves it. Developers in Dubai record the referring brokerage at the point of registration — the booking form, the sales and purchase agreement — and they pay commission to that brokerage based on construction milestones or on completion. Dubai's escrow law, first introduced in 2007, ensures that payments are released only when real progress is verified. The developer's commission payment to the selling agency often follows a similar logic: it is milestone-linked or completion-linked, not paid at booking.

If an agent books a unit under Brokerage A and then moves to Brokerage B before the developer releases commission, the developer will pay Brokerage A. That is who is in their records. The individual agent — now at Brokerage B — has to resolve their entitlement to a share of that commission through their former employer. That is an internal employment matter, governed by the agent's contract with Brokerage A, not by anything the developer or the buyer controls. The developer does not split their payment between two agencies based on staff movements they were not party to.

This is a painful reality for mobile agents in off-plan markets. Deals booked in one year, under one employer, but completing two years later often generate commission long after the agent has moved on. Without a clear written arrangement with the former brokerage, the agent may have no enforceable claim to a share of that money at all.

## The Dispute Anatomy: How These Things Actually Break Down

The typical mid-transaction agency switch dispute follows a recognisable pattern. Understanding the steps helps both agencies involved navigate it more cleanly.

**Step one — the agent gives notice.** Sometimes clean; more often messy. The agent tells clients informally. WhatsApp messages accumulate under a personal number that goes with the agent, not with the agency.

**Step two — the agency discovers the exposure.** The brokerage has signed representation forms, a co-broke in progress, and possibly a Form F (MOU) in place. They have obligations to the parties they contracted with, but the human who built those relationships is now at a competitor. The client may be calling the agent's mobile rather than the agency switchboard.

**Step three — the counter-agency finds out.** The buyer's agent or the other side's listing agent receives a message from someone using a new email domain. The paperwork they have in their file references the old brokerage. Nobody has told them officially that anything has changed.

**Step four — commission ambiguity.** When the deal closes — assuming it closes — the commission invoice arrives from an entity the paying party may not have a signed agreement with. Or two invoices arrive. Or one invoice arrives and a separate agent separately demands payment through their former employer.

Commission disputes are fact-specific: who introduced whom, what was signed, and what was paid. In an agent-switch scenario, the facts are further complicated by the question of who was acting for which entity at which point in time. A RERA or DLD complaint from either side will land on those exact questions, and the party with the cleaner paper trail will be in the stronger position.

If a commission dispute arises, RERA's dispute resolution process handles the case, and having a written agreement is essential to win any dispute. The agent who moved mid-deal, operating informally without a re-registered representation agreement, is at a structural disadvantage in that forum regardless of how much work they actually did.

## The Client's Position: They Just Want the Deal Done

One thing that gets lost when agents and agencies are focused on their own claim is what this looks like from the client's side. A buyer who has signed a Form F (MOU), paid a deposit, and arranged their manager's cheques is not interested in which brokerage gets the commission. They want the DLD transfer to happen on the agreed date. A seller who has obtained the developer's NOC — which comes with an expiry date — does not have time for an internal industry dispute to push the deal past that expiry.

Whatever rate you agree, get it documented in the agency agreement before signing any MOU. Verbal agreements on commission are not enforceable under RERA dispute resolution. The same principle scales up: if the split between two agencies in a co-broke is not in writing, and one party's agent then leaves, there is nothing enforceable to fall back on. The client who is caught in the middle has every right to be frustrated, and in extreme cases they will simply refuse to close until the agents sort themselves out. If the MOU has a completion deadline, that refusal can trigger penalties. The dispute has now moved from a commission problem to a contractual breach risk.

By law, all real estate commissions are subject to 5% VAT. When the paying party finally determines who to pay, they are entitled to a proper VAT-compliant tax invoice from a registered entity — not a personal payment request from an individual who is between agencies. In the confusion of an agent switch, this basic requirement can be overlooked, creating further complications when buyers or tenants need to account for the expenditure.

## What Should Have Been Done Before Anyone Left

The scenario is avoidable. Not because agents never move agencies — that is simply the nature of the market — but because the deal's documentation should be structured so that it survives the movement of any individual within it.

The practices that prevent agent-switch disputes are not complicated:

- **The co-broke agreement between agencies goes in writing before the deal moves forward.** Form I exists precisely for this. When multiple agents are involved in the same listing, commissions are split between them according to signed RERA forms. This ensures transparency and avoids disputes. A handshake between two agents is not a Form I. It disappears the moment one of those agents changes their WhatsApp profile picture to a new agency logo.

- **The representation forms reference the agency, not just the individual agent.** The Form A, Form B, and any co-broking agreement should clearly identify the brokerage's ORN. When the agent leaves, the agreement remains with the brokerage and the new agent handling the file can continue under the existing documentation.

- **Commission splits are agreed in writing at the point the co-broke relationship starts, not at closing.** Every contract must clearly state the rate and payment terms upfront. If several agents share work on one property, the total commission is split between them according to agreed roles from the start. Clear terms prevent disputes. Leaving the split discussion to the closing table — when pressure is highest and relationships may have changed — is the single most reliable way to create a dispute.

- **Payments flow between agencies, not between individuals.** Direct cash transfers between agents violate rules and can lead to licence suspension. Commission always passes through the brokerage. If an agent in a co-broke deal wants to ensure their former brokerage pays them their share, that is their employment contract at work — it does not affect the inter-agency payment obligation.

- **All parties are paid at the same moment, from the same transaction, before anyone leaves the table.** The longer the gap between a deal closing and commission being distributed, the more opportunity there is for circumstances to change — including an agent changing employers. If Brokerage A, Brokerage B, the listing agent, and the buyer's agent all receive what was agreed in writing at the same moment the client's funds settle, there is nothing left to dispute. The split was on paper. The payment happened. The transaction is clean.

## The Principle That Makes These Deals Survive

The principle to hold onto is simple: commission is owed to the broker who actually brokered the transaction — introduced the property and did the work of concluding the deal. An agent switching agencies mid-deal does not erase the work they did. But it does create a structural gap between the work that was done and the documented framework that proves entitlement to payment. Closing that gap is the agent's responsibility, and it needs to happen before, not after, the move.

For the agent who is staying — the co-operating agent on the other side, or the agency holding the original signed forms — the right response is not to treat the switch as an opportunity to claim more than was agreed. That approach might look attractive in the short term. In a market where reputation travels fast and co-broke relationships are ongoing, burning another agency over a commission technicality created by an agent's resignation is rarely worth the money.

The thing that protects every agent in this situation — switching or staying, listing side or buyer side, residential sale or off-plan or rental — is the same thing that protects them in every other commission dispute: a signed agreement, in writing, between the actual parties who are going to perform and be paid, captured before the client pays, covering the exact split, and executed so that payment happens simultaneously for everyone entitled to it.

When the deal is structured that way, the agent who switches agency mid-transaction creates an administrative inconvenience, not a dispute. The paper says what was agreed. The money follows the paper. Nobody is chasing anyone after the transfer. That is the standard every Dubai agent should be working toward on every deal they touch, because the one that is not structured that way is the one that ends up in front of a dispute resolution panel — and the outcome there depends entirely on what was written down before the situation went sideways.