The Deal Was Done. Then the Seller’s Phone Went Silent.
The listing was on a shared basis — no exclusive mandate, just a Form A signed with the seller and a buyer brought in by a co-broking agency. Both agents had spoken, agreed on a 50/50 split by WhatsApp, and everyone shook hands on the number. The Form F (MOU) was signed, the 10% deposit cheque was in hand, and the developer NOC was being processed. Then, three days before the DLD Trustee Office appointment, the seller stopped returning calls. The buyer’s agent got through eventually. The seller’s position had shifted: the buyer had approached them directly, the conversation had happened on the side, and there was a new understanding — the listing agent was no longer needed, and the buyer’s agent would be paid something reduced, direct, in cash, at transfer.
That is the scenario this article is about. It is not rare. It does not only happen with naive agents or careless paperwork. It happens to experienced professionals who moved fast, trusted the goodwill in the room, and underestimated how much money was on the table once the transaction was close to completion.
Understanding why it happens, what leverage you actually have at each stage, and what paperwork makes the difference between getting paid and filing a RERA complaint are the three things worth getting right before you ever sit across from a seller who decides the finish line is also the renegotiation point.
Why the Last Step Feels Like the Safest Place to Cut
A seller who wants to reduce or eliminate the agent’s commission has a strategic problem: they need the agent’s cooperation, or at least the agent’s absence, at exactly the moment the transaction is most exposed. The buyer exists. The price is agreed. The Form F is signed. From the seller’s perspective, the hard work is done — and the agent’s cheque is the only variable left they can still touch.
The psychology is straightforward. The closer the deal gets to transfer, the more the seller calculates that the agent has no real exit option. The buyer wants to close. The DLD transfer appointment is booked. The manager’s cheques are being prepared. The seller bets that the agent will accept a reduced figure rather than blow up the transaction and lose everything.
What the seller is often betting on is one of these gaps:
- The co-broking split was never formalized in a signed Form I — it was agreed verbally or by message, and one agent is now dependent on the other to enforce it.
- The commission cheque is supposed to come from the seller, but the mechanism for when and how it is handed over was left vague.
- The buyer has been in contact with the seller outside the agent’s presence, and a different arrangement has been quietly proposed.
- The listing agent and the buyer’s agent are from different brokerages with no shared agreement, leaving a gap in the paper trail that a clever seller can exploit.
Each of these gaps is a structural problem, not a personal failing. The Dubai secondary market runs largely on shared listings with no exclusivity, which means deals are assembled quickly and the documentation of how fees will flow often lags behind the pace of the deal itself.
What the Forms Actually Say — and What They Don’t
Commission rates must be clearly defined in the Form A (Seller Agreement) and Form B (Buyer Agreement) contracts. Those two forms establish the agent’s right to act and the agreed commission rate, and they are non-negotiable foundations. If you have a signed Form A, you have a documented relationship with the seller and a record of the agreed fee. Without it, you are in significantly weaker territory if the seller decides to renegotiate at the door of the Trustee Office.
Form F is the most important of all RERA forms. It replaced the old handwritten MOU, standardizing all sale agreements. It is now issued digitally through the Dubai REST App or Trakheesi, ensuring that every deal is registered within the DLD system.
The Dubai Land Department Form F will cover property and financial details and the commission to be paid to the seller’s and buyer’s agents. This is critical: the commission amounts for both sides are written into the Form F that both buyer and seller sign. If those figures are on the form, the seller has already acknowledged — in writing, in a DLD-registered document — what each agent is owed. Attempting to renegotiate that after signing is not just bad faith; it is a departure from the terms of a legally witnessed document.
Form F is only a valid contract after it has been signed by the seller and the buyer. It must also be witnessed and dated by the agent. That witnessing role matters. It means the agent is present, documented, and part of the legal record of the agreement. The seller cannot easily claim the agent’s involvement was peripheral once the form is in the DLD system.
But Form F captures the buyer–seller transaction. The commission split between two agencies is a separate layer — and this is where many disputes actually live.
The Form I Problem: Where Co-Brokering Deals Break Down
In Dubai’s cooperative brokerage ecosystem, multiple agencies often work together. Form I confirms which agent introduced the buyer and how commissions will be shared.
Without Form I, there is no legal protection regarding how the deal is handled between the two agencies. Form I clearly defines how the total commission will be divided between the listing agent and the buyer’s agent.
This is where the gap lives in most deals that go sideways. Two agents agree on a 50/50 or a 60/40 split by phone or WhatsApp. The deal moves fast, the client is eager, and signing a Form I feels like an administrative detail that can happen later. Later never comes — or it comes after the seller has already made a separate arrangement with one of the agents.
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.
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.
The scenario where a seller cuts out one agent often depends on this gap. If the buyer’s agent has a signed Form I with the listing agent, the listing agent cannot be pressured into accepting a modified arrangement without breaching that agreement. If there is no Form I, the seller and one agent can reframe the deal between themselves, and the excluded agent has a much harder claim to make.
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 pressure to move fast is real. A buyer is motivated, a property is competitive, and stopping to document the co-broking split feels like it risks the deal. But the risk of not documenting it is quantifiably larger. The time to sign Form I is when the two agents agree to collaborate — before the buyer sees the property, certainly before the Form F is signed.
When the Commission Is “Earned” — and When It Gets Paid
These are two different questions, and confusing them is one reason agents end up in weak positions at transfer.
Most agents consider commission earned when the buyer and seller sign the MOU. This is the standard expectation and is supported by RERA in disputes. That is the moment the agent has performed the service: brought the parties together and documented the agreement. The MOU is signed, the price is locked, the deal is real.
But being owed and being paid are different things. Even when commission is “earned” at MOU, payment may be structured as a portion at MOU and the remainder at transfer. That deferred structure is where the seller sees an opportunity. If the full commission cheque is only due at transfer, the seller still controls when — and whether — that cheque is prepared and handed over.
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 the commission is structured to be paid entirely at transfer, the agent has given up the only natural checkpoint before the deal is done. A seller who waits until the Trustee Office to try a renegotiation is betting that no commission cheque in hand means no negotiating power for the agent. In a busy Trustee Office, with a buyer’s lawyer present and a DLD deadline looming, that bet sometimes pays off.
In rental transactions, the timing is clearer: commission is due when the Ejari-registered tenancy contract is signed and the security deposit and first cheque are handed over. The simultaneity built into that process — contract, deposit, and commission all at once — is closer to the principle that removes the leverage gap.
What the Seller Actually Controls at Transfer
Let us be direct about the mechanics. At a DLD Trustee Office appointment, the seller controls the manager’s cheques for the purchase price. The buyer brings their payment. The DLD transfer fee of 4% is managed through the trustee. But the commission cheque to the listing agent’s brokerage — who prepares that, and when?
In most secondary-market deals, it is the seller who issues the commission cheque to their listing agent, and the buyer who issues the commission cheque to their buying agent. Both buyer and seller pay their respective agents separately. That separation means the listing agent’s payment is wholly in the seller’s hands at transfer. If the seller decides not to bring that cheque, or to bring a cheque for a different amount, or to hand one agent cash and tell the other to go home, the agent has a legal claim but a practical problem.
The buyer’s agent is somewhat differently positioned — their cheque comes from the buyer, who has generally shown up committed and prepared — but in the scenario where the seller has made a side arrangement with the buyer directly, that position can also be compromised.
The seller’s leverage exists entirely because payment has not happened yet. Every delay in commission payment, every structure that keeps money in the seller’s hand until after transfer, is a window during which the deal’s original terms can be challenged.
What Leverage the Agent Actually Has
This is the part agents need to think through before a deal starts, not after a seller goes silent.
The Form F is your anchor. Form F (MOU) plays a central role in every resale property deal because it gives the transaction a clear legal framework before transfer begins. It removes uncertainty in property transactions, locks the agreed terms in place, and creates a structure that both sides must follow under the Dubai Land Department and RERA rules. If the commission amounts are properly entered on the Form F and both buyer and seller have signed it, the seller’s attempt to renegotiate at transfer is a departure from a DLD-registered agreement.
The Form A establishes your mandate. Form A is the starting point of any property sale. It is a formal contract between the property owner and the real estate broker, and it gives the agent the legal authority to market and advertise that property. A seller trying to cut the agent out after Form A is signed is not simply declining a service — they are walking away from a documented agency agreement.
The Form I secures the split. Form I governs the co-brokerage relationship between two agents, formalizing the commission sharing structure. Without it, each agent’s claim against the other is harder to enforce. With it, both are protected from the seller’s attempt to work one against the other.
RERA provides a complaints route. The DLD/RERA 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. 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.
But going to RERA is slow. If either party disagrees with RERA’s ruling, the case can be escalated to the Dubai Courts. A complaint filed after transfer means the deal has already closed. The money has already moved. The agent is now in a position of chasing payment that was never made, with a regulatory and potentially court process ahead of them. That is months of work, stress, and cost for a commission that should have been simple.
This is why leverage at the point of dispute is always weaker than leverage at the point of agreement. By the time an agent is calling RERA, they have already lost the natural moment to be paid.
What Evidence Wins and What Gets Discarded
If the matter does go to RERA or to the courts, what survives scrutiny and what does not?
What survives:
- A signed Form A with the commission rate specified
- A signed Form B from the buyer’s side
- A signed Form I with the agreed split between agencies
- Form F with commission amounts named for both agents
- Commission cheques made out to the brokerage, not cash and not to an individual
- Date-stamped viewing records, WhatsApp messages tying the buyer’s introduction to the agent, and email correspondence confirming the split
What gets discarded or heavily discounted:
- Verbal agreements, no matter how clearly remembered by both sides
- WhatsApp messages confirming a split that was never backed by a Form I
- Commission paid in cash, with no paper trail
- Commission cheques made out to an individual agent’s name rather than the brokerage
In a dual-agency dispute, the paper trail determines the outcome. The same is true in a single listing with two agencies. The agent who has complete, signed documentation at every stage of the process is the one whose claim holds up. The agent who moved on trust is the one explaining to a RERA panel why they did not use the forms that exist precisely for this situation.
The single most effective way to avoid commission disputes is to sign Form A or Form B before any property viewings begin. Keep records of all viewings attended, communications, and agreements.
Receiving any commission in cash, outside the formal brokerage structure, creates problems even when the intent is good. All commissions are subject to 5% VAT under UAE law. A commission received without a proper invoice issued by the brokerage, with VAT accounted for, is a compliance problem on top of a documentation problem. Every commission payment should have an invoice, a cheque made to the brokerage, and a trail that can be audited.
The Rental Version of the Same Problem
Agents working rentals face a structurally similar problem with one variation: the Ejari registration is the natural moment of truth. If you are renting in Dubai, you will encounter RERA through the Ejari system. This is not just a form; it is an online registration platform run by DLD.
A landlord who wants to cut the agent out of a rental deal will often try to complete the tenancy directly with the tenant after the agent has done the viewing and the negotiation. Without a signed Form A (or equivalent listing agreement), the agent’s claim is harder to prove. Without Ejari registration of the tenancy contract, the commission trigger event — contract signing and deposit handover — may not be clearly documented.
In rental deals with post-dated cheques, the tenant typically hands over a set of cheques at signing: rent cheques to the landlord, a security deposit cheque, and a commission cheque to the agency. The simultaneity of that exchange is the rental market’s version of paid-at-once. If the commission cheque is issued at the same time as the tenancy contract is Ejari-registered, neither the landlord nor the tenant can easily claim that the agent was not involved or not owed.
The gap opens when agents allow the tenancy to be signed and the cheques to be handed without their commission cheque being prepared simultaneously. Once a landlord has the tenant’s rent cheques in hand and the keys are across the table, the agent’s negotiating position has collapsed.
The Off-Plan Angle: Developer Commissions and a Different Risk
Off-plan is structurally cleaner for agents in one sense: developer commissions are typically paid by the developer directly to the registered brokerage once the sale is registered with the Dubai Land Department and the Oqood (provisional registration) is issued. The buyer does not pay the agent’s commission — the developer does, from the project’s regulated escrow account, which exists under Dubai’s off-plan real estate law to protect purchaser payments and govern how project funds are disbursed.
The risk in off-plan is different: it is the co-broker split when one agent has the developer relationship and another has the buyer. If the buyer’s agent is not registered with the developer, they depend entirely on the listing agent to share the commission after the developer pays. That creates the same dynamic as a secondary-market deal where the commission sits in the seller’s hands before transfer — one party controls the money, and the other is waiting.
Form I, again, is the answer. If the split is in a signed Form I before the buyer is introduced to the developer or the project, both agents have a documented claim. Without it, the buyer’s agent is in the weakest possible position once the developer has already paid the listing brokerage and the conversation turns to how much gets shared.
How This Gets Fixed Before It Starts
The structural reality of Dubai’s secondary market is that there is no mandated exclusive listing system. A seller can have Form A signed with up to three brokerages at one time. Under RERA regulations, a seller can sign Form A with a maximum of three brokers at any given time. This prevents the market from being flooded with duplicate listings and ensures quality control. In that environment, co-broking is not an exception — it is the norm. Which means the form that governs co-broking, Form I, should be standard practice in every shared deal, not an afterthought.
The principle that eliminates most of what this article has described is simple to state and harder to enforce in a fast-moving market: every agreement about who gets paid what should be signed before the client pays, and every party should be paid at the same time.
That means:
- Form A signed before the property is marketed or shown
- Form B signed before the buyer is introduced to the property
- Form I signed before the buyer views the property through a co-broking arrangement
- Commission amounts named on the Form F when it is prepared and signed by both buyer and seller
- Commission cheques prepared and handed over simultaneously with the transfer — not promised for later, not to be followed up after the keys are exchanged
When every party is paid at the same moment the deal closes, there is no window for a seller to renegotiate, no gap where the money is still in someone’s pocket while the other parties have already moved on.
Skipping or incorrectly completing a RERA form does not just create inconvenience. It can result in a transaction being rejected by the Dubai Land Department, a commission dispute with no legal basis for resolution, or a regulatory complaint against the agent or brokerage involved.
The seller who tries to cut the agent out at the last step is not operating in a vacuum. They are exploiting a gap that the documentation should have already closed. When the paperwork is complete and the payment structure is simultaneous, that gap does not exist. There is nothing to renegotiate, because the agreement is already in the DLD system, witnessed and signed, with the commission terms visible to all parties from the moment the MOU was executed.
The forms exist. The mechanism exists. The principle is sound. What agents need to defend is not their commission at the Trustee Office door — it is their habit of treating Form I, Form A, and payment timing as non-negotiable parts of every deal, not optional extras to complete when there is time.
The One Rule That Changes Everything
The scenario at the start of this article — the silent phone, the Trustee Office three days away, the seller’s new arrangement — survives because there was a window. Agreements made by message. A split not in writing. A commission due at transfer with no mechanism to enforce it simultaneously.
The question worth sitting with is not what to do when the seller stops answering. It is what to do on the day the co-broking arrangement is agreed, when everyone is still cooperating and the deal feels solid. That is the day Form I gets signed, or not. That is the day the commission structure on the Form F is confirmed, or left vague. That is the day the payment timing is agreed in writing, or left to trust.
Everything that happens at the last step was set up — or not set up — at the first step.
When the split is agreed, signed, and visible to all parties before anyone pays anything, and when every agent is paid at the moment the deal closes, the seller who wants to renegotiate has nowhere to stand. The window is closed before it ever opened.
That is the outcome to build toward: not chasing commission after transfer, not filing complaints after deals close, not explaining to a RERA panel why you moved on a handshake. Get it in writing, at the start, for everyone. That is what getting paid looks like.
