The deal that nearly paid twice — and then paid nobody
Picture the scene. A buyer’s agent from one agency brings a qualified client to a listing held by an agent at a second agency. The two agents shake hands — or, more realistically, agree over WhatsApp — that the co-broke split will be 50/50 on the total commission. The buyer loves the unit. Form F gets signed. The client hands over manager’s cheques. The transfer goes through at the DLD trustee office. And then the argument starts.
The listing agent’s principal decides the other agency “didn’t do enough” to earn half. The buyer’s agent insists the deal would never have happened without their client introduction. Nobody has a signed piece of paper spelling out the split. What exists is a WhatsApp thread, a lot of memory, and two agencies with incompatible versions of what was agreed. The commission sits in one agency’s account. A complaint goes to RERA. Months pass.
This is not a rare edge case. It is one of the most common sources of commission conflict in the Dubai secondary market, and it is almost entirely avoidable. The answer is not a cleverer argument after the event. It is a signed split agreement before the first viewing.
Why Dubai’s deal structure creates the gap
To understand why the split argument happens so reliably, it helps to look at the mechanics of how shared deals work in this market.
When a property is listed, signing Form A is mandatory — it authorises a broker to market the property, outlines commission, and defines the listing period. Only after this form is submitted via the Trakheesi system does the DLD assign a permit number to the listing. Critically, sellers may sign up to three Form A agreements — each with a different broker — simultaneously. That means the same unit can be actively marketed by multiple agencies at the same time, with no exclusive mandate protecting any one of them.
This is the structural reality that creates pressure. There is no MLS equivalent that locks a listing to one agency and forces a clean buyer-side split. Instead, the buyer’s agent and the listing agent operate in parallel, each with their own client relationship and their own sense of entitlement to the fee. When those two agents come from different agencies, there is no shared internal system enforcing how the split is divided or when it is paid.
Form F applies specifically to resale secondary-market transactions — it serves as the definitive agreement between the buyer and seller, capturing every material term of the deal: property details, agreed price, payment schedule, transfer timeline, penalty clauses, and the agent’s commission. What Form F does not do is enforce a split between agents from competing agencies. That is a separate agreement, and it only holds if it is documented separately.
In resale transactions, commission is paid at the DLD trustee office on the day of transfer: the buyer’s agent commission is deducted from the buyer’s payment, and the seller’s agent commission is deducted from the seller’s proceeds. But in a co-broke scenario where one commission pool is collected, neither deduction mechanism automatically distributes between the two agents. The money arrives at one agency. Whether — and how much — the other agency receives depends entirely on what was agreed, and whether that agreement can be proved.
Where the money actually sits — and why it matters
For sales, the commission cheque is usually collected by the agent at the time of signing Form F, but the agent does not cash it immediately. The cheque is held as security and is only handed over or cashed on the day of the final transfer at the DLD trustee office, once the title deed has been successfully transferred.
This gap between MOU signing and the transfer day is important. It is the period during which a deal can still unravel — and during which agents may recalibrate what they think they deserve. A listing agent who signed a co-broke arrangement casually at the start of the process may feel, by transfer day, that the buyer’s agent contributed less than they thought. Or the agencies’ principals may become involved and apply pressure. By the time the cheque is about to be cashed, the verbal split from three weeks ago feels fragile.
In off-plan transactions, the developer pays the agent commission after the SPA is signed and the initial payment is received, with payment timelines varying by developer — some pay within 30 days, others on a schedule tied to construction milestones. For a co-broke on an off-plan unit, the timeline between deal and payment can stretch to weeks or months. In that window, without a signed split agreement, a second agency has no documented claim on any portion of what eventually arrives from the developer. They have a conversation, a follow-up message, and goodwill — none of which holds up if the other party decides it is more convenient to forget.
For rental transactions, commission is paid when the tenancy contract is signed and the first rent cheque is handed over. That is a more immediate payment event, but the same logic applies. If two agents from different offices worked together on a leasing deal — one held the landlord relationship, one brought the tenant — and there is no signed agreement on the split, the agent who holds the cheque at signing has all the leverage.
The form that exists, and why it is not always used
The Agent-to-Agent Contract, officially known as Form I, is a legally binding agreement used in Dubai to formalise the collaboration between two real estate agents. Commission agreements between agents — 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.
To protect both agents, Form I should be signed before working together. It is designed to protect an agent’s listings and clients, and must be completed in the event that two agents decide to work together.
Yet plenty of Dubai co-broke deals happen without it, and the reason is not ignorance. It is friction and trust misplaced at the wrong moment. Agents worry that raising a formal agreement will signal distrust to a colleague they want to build a relationship with. Or the deal is moving fast and both agents want to lock in the client before the paperwork catches up. Or the split feels obvious — “we always do 50/50, everyone knows that” — so formalising it seems unnecessary.
When two brokers collaborate on a deal, the commission structure must be agreed upon in advance. Without a clear Agent-to-Agent agreement, many agents end up in costly disputes or losing their commission entirely. That outcome is not theoretical. It is the direct result of the logic described above: the agent who holds the money has the practical advantage the moment a dispute arises, and the agent without a signed agreement has very little to stand on.
A breach of the agreement can lead to penalties, commission forfeiture, or disputes with RERA and the DLD. The point being that this instrument is enforceable — but only when it exists.
How the dispute actually unfolds
The anatomy of a split dispute follows a predictable pattern. It is worth laying it out plainly, because agents who have not been through one tend to underestimate how slow and damaging it is.
The deal closes. One agency has the commission. The second agency asks for their portion. The first agency either delays, disputes the amount, or goes quiet. The second agency escalates to the principals. Principals dispute each other’s account of what was verbally agreed. If there is a WhatsApp thread, each side reads it differently. Someone files a complaint through RERA or the DLD. The Dubai Land Department regulates registered brokers and handles complaints about broker conduct, including fee disputes with a brokerage.
At that point, the second agency has to prove their entitlement. Any commission arrangement must be agreed in writing on a RERA-approved form before services are rendered. If no written agreement exists and a dispute arises, the DLD arbitration system will default to the standard rate. But “default to the standard rate” is cold comfort when the other party is contesting whether you were entitled to anything at all. The arbitration process takes time. The relationship between the two agencies is now damaged. Neither agent is spending that time closing new deals.
This is the real cost of the absent split agreement: not just the commission at risk, but the weeks or months of attention pulled into a retrospective argument about something that should have been settled in five minutes before the first viewing.
The VAT layer that gets missed in co-broke arrangements
There is another complication that rarely comes up until it needs to. 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. On a commission of AED 40,000 — 2% of a AED 2 million property — VAT adds AED 2,000, making the total payable AED 42,000.
In a co-broke arrangement, both agencies are providing a brokerage service. The question of who invoices for VAT, and on which portion, matters. If the split agreement is vague, the VAT treatment will also be vague. One agency may invoice the client for the full commission plus VAT, collect it all, and then pay the other agency a net split — leaving the second agency either unable to account for VAT on their portion, or discovering that the split they thought they were getting is actually a different number after tax adjustments.
A properly drafted split agreement should state the gross commission, the split percentage for each party, and clarify how the VAT component is handled. This is not complex, but it requires that the agreement exists in the first place.
The off-plan dimension
Off-plan deals sit in a slightly different position. RERA is responsible for licensing agents, registering off-plan escrow accounts, and maintaining the Trakheesi system for all real estate activity. Under Dubai law, developers selling off-plan units must hold buyer payments in a regulated escrow account — this is the legal mechanism established to protect buyers’ funds during the construction phase, separate from any agent-level arrangement.
What that means for agents is that the commission on an off-plan sale does not pass through the same DLD trustee process as a secondary market deal. The developer pays the agent commission after the SPA is signed and the initial payment is received. The developer pays a registered brokerage, not individual agents, and not automatically split between two agencies.
If a buyer’s agent at Agency A brings a client to a developer’s project — a project that Agency B holds as a registered co-selling partner — the split between A and B exists entirely outside the developer’s payment system. The developer will pay whoever they have a registered agency agreement with. What happens between the two agencies is governed by what the two agencies agreed between themselves. Which brings us back to the same point: if there is no signed split, there is no enforceable claim.
When multiple agents are involved in the same listing, off-plan and resale property commissions are split between them according to signed RERA forms. This ensures transparency and avoids disputes. The framework exists. Using it is the practice that needs to become universal.
What a properly constructed split agreement actually contains
A co-broke split agreement that holds up should resolve every question that the absence of one leaves open. Before the first viewing or the first client introduction, both agents should be able to confirm the following in writing:
- Which property — specific unit, development, and price point
- The total commission — expressed as a percentage of the agreed transaction value, inclusive of VAT treatment
- The split percentage — how the pool is divided between the two agencies; in Dubai, sale transactions typically use a 50/50 split of the total commission as a commonly accepted standard, though the exact terms are for the parties to negotiate
- The trigger for payment — MOU signing, transfer, or developer payment receipt, stated clearly so there is no room to argue about when the obligation arises
- Payment method — manager’s cheque made out to the agency, not to an individual; 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
- Both agents’ BRN numbers and brokerage ORN numbers — confirming that both parties are licensed and that the commission arrangement is between registered brokerages
Any time two brokers collaborate on a listing or share client information, it is best practice to have a Form I agreement in place before sharing full details. This avoids ambiguity and ensures both parties are legally protected.
The agreement does not need to be long. It needs to be specific and it needs to be signed by both parties before the deal progresses. The timing is the part that almost every dispute traces back to. The agreement that gets signed the week before closing, after both agents know the deal is solid, is much less reliable than the agreement signed the day the co-broke was established.
The simultaneous payment principle
Even a perfectly worded split agreement can leave room for a payment dispute if the two agencies collect and distribute at different times. The structural solution — the one that eliminates the argument entirely — is that both parties get paid at the same moment, from the same transaction event.
In a secondary market deal, that moment is the DLD trustee office. Both commission cheques — one for each agency — should be prepared in advance, made out to the respective brokerages, and handed over simultaneously on transfer day. Neither agency is waiting on the other to release funds. Neither agency is trusting that the other will calculate and wire the correct portion at some point after collecting the total.
Both buyers and sellers must be aware of the commission structure before signing a Sales and Purchase Agreement. The same principle applies between agents: everyone’s share must be agreed, documented, and structured for collection before the client pays. Not after the transfer. Not after the developer pays. Before.
For a rental deal, the same logic applies to the moment the tenancy is signed and the cheques change hands. Tenancy contract signing is when commission is due — when the Ejari-registered tenancy contract is signed and the security deposit and first cheque are handed over. If there are two agencies involved, the split arrangement should be clear by that moment, not revisited once the commission is already sitting in one account.
For off-plan, the lag between booking and developer payment means the simultaneous principle is harder to enforce mechanically — but it can still be achieved structurally. A clear, signed Form I agreement stating the split percentage and the payment trigger (developer payment date) creates an obligation that is timed to the same event. When the developer pays Agency A, Agency A’s obligation to pay Agency B is immediate, specific, and documented. There is nothing to argue about.
Why agents avoid the conversation — and why that is the riskier choice
The discomfort agents feel about raising a formal split agreement with a co-broke colleague comes from a real place. In a relationship-based market like Dubai’s, where the same agents work together across dozens of deals, asking for paperwork can feel like an accusation. As if you are saying: I don’t trust you.
But that framing is backwards. The agent who asks for a signed split agreement before the deal moves forward is not signalling distrust — they are signalling that they take the deal seriously. Any professional who has been through a split dispute understands this immediately. The Form I request does not slow the deal down. It takes minutes. It documents something both agents presumably already agree on. If they do not agree on it, that is the conversation to have now, not in front of a RERA complaints officer in three months.
Commission is not owed simply because an agent showed a property or answered messages. It becomes legally payable only once a signed representation is in place and the transaction the agent was engaged to complete actually goes ahead. The same principle governs the inter-agency split: the entitlement to a share only has legal weight when the share is documented. Everything else is a conversation.
The agents who never face split disputes are not the ones who picked better colleagues. They are the ones who made the agreement concrete at the start, every time, without exception.
The principle that closes the argument
There is one discipline that runs through every successful co-broke arrangement in this market: the split is agreed, written, and signed before the client pays, and every party collects at the same time.
That discipline is not bureaucratic caution. It is the foundation of a professional co-broke relationship. It protects both agents equally. It makes the relationship more durable, not less — because both agents know exactly what they are owed and exactly when they will receive it. There is nothing left to interpret, nothing left to dispute, and no moment at which one party holds all the money and the other holds only a memory of a conversation.
The argument that a signed split prevents is not just about one deal. It is about every deal that follows. Agencies that co-broke cleanly, every time, build reputations that make future co-brokes easier to arrange, faster to execute, and more likely to produce referrals. Agencies that let splits drift into verbal agreements and retrospective arguments earn a different reputation — one that eventually makes other agents reluctant to bring them deals at all.
The signed split does not end the argument when it is filed. It ends the argument before it can start. That is the only version worth having.
