The deal is done. Now who gets paid?
Picture this. An agent at Agency A has a solid listing — a three-bedroom in Business Bay with a Form A in place, a Trakheesi permit on every advertisement, and a motivated seller. An agent at Agency B has the buyer: pre-qualified, ready to move, not looking at anything else. The two agents speak on the phone, agree to split the commission equally, and get to work. They arrange viewings, the buyer makes an offer, the seller accepts, both agents co-sign the Form F MOU as witnessing parties, the deposit cheque changes hands, and thirty days later the transfer goes through at the DLD trustee’s office.
Then the question arrives: when does Agency B’s agent actually get paid, and by whom?
If the answer to that question was never put in writing — specifically in a signed Form I — the agent at Agency B is about to find out exactly how little a phone call is worth under Dubai law.
What the law is actually measuring
Before getting into the mechanics, it is worth being precise about what “the law” means in this context, because agents sometimes conflate three different things: RERA’s regulatory framework for licensed brokers, the general law of contract under UAE civil law, and the jurisdiction of the Rental Disputes Settlement Centre (RDSC) for rental disputes. Each of these does something distinct.
The Dubai Land Department is the overarching body responsible for the registration of all real estate transactions and the ultimate issuance of title deeds. RERA enforces DLD policies on the ground, ensuring that developers and brokers operate within the legal boundaries set by the department.
While DLD maintains the core registers and sets the legislative framework, RERA focuses on how market participants behave within that framework. RERA is responsible for licensing real estate professionals and companies, supervising key financial safeguards, regulating jointly owned properties and owners’ associations, and enforcing rules on marketing, inspections, and overall market conduct.
What RERA does not do is set a fixed commission rate. There is no law in Dubai that sets or mandates a real estate commission rate. RERA regulates who may act as a broker and how they must conduct a transaction, but it does not fix the fee.
What that means in practice is that the rate you are owed is entirely a function of what was agreed and what was documented. The 2% and 5% figures are market convention that the industry has settled on, which means the rate in your signed agreement, not a government tariff, is what governs the fee you owe.
This is the first reason a split with no written agreement is precarious: there is no regulatory backstop. If there is nothing on paper, there is no agreed rate. There is only a claim, and claims have to be proven.
Form I: the document that turns a conversation into a contract
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. It is the mechanism RERA created specifically for the situation described above — two licensed agents from different brokerages working the same deal.
The agent-to-agent agreement specifies the property in question, the names and RERA registration details of both agents, the commission-split arrangement, confidentiality obligations regarding client information, and terms governing how the agents will cooperate through the transaction. Before the buyer’s agent can arrange viewings, share the property’s details, or participate in negotiations, both agents must sign Form I. This protects the listing agent’s client relationship, ensures the buyer’s agent receives their agreed share of commission, and prevents disputes about who facilitated the sale.
Read that again: before viewings, before negotiations. The form is not a formality to be completed once a deal is done. It is the foundational document for the collaboration itself. Without Form I, a buyer’s agent cannot legally represent their client’s interests when viewing or negotiating for a property listed by another brokerage.
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.
That phrasing matters enormously. The form must be signed before disbursement. In the sequence of a deal, that means before the client pays, not after. The reason for this becomes obvious once you understand what happens when it is missing.
What a verbal agreement gives you
Almost nothing — and that is not a rough assessment; it is the regulatory position.
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.
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 complications do not have to be malicious to be damaging. Consider the most common scenarios:
- The listing agent’s agency collects the full commission from the buyer and then disputes how much — if anything — is owed to the co-operating agent’s brokerage, citing an internal policy or a different recollection of what was agreed.
- The developer on an off-plan deal releases commission to the selling brokerage only, and that brokerage takes the position that no documented obligation to a third party exists.
- The listing agent leaves their brokerage between the time of the introduction and the time of the transfer, and the new principal of that brokerage has no knowledge of any verbal arrangement.
- The deal drags for three months due to a mortgage delay, the buyer’s circumstances change, the principals at both brokerages change, and there is literally no record of what the originating agents agreed.
In every one of these situations, the agent who carried out the work, introduced the qualified buyer, managed the relationship, and contributed to closing the deal has no enforceable claim unless there is a signed Form I.
Without Form I, Agent A risks Agent B approaching the buyer directly and cutting them out of the commission. Equally, Agent B risks Agent A’s buyer going back to the seller independently and removing the listing agent from the deal. The form creates mutual accountability and makes the commission split legally enforceable.
Both sides are exposed. This is not a situation where one agent is the villain. Without the form, the entire arrangement is legally undefined, and either party can walk away from the verbal commitment with limited consequence.
How the split is structured — and why ambiguity creeps in
In the Dubai real estate market, it is very common for two different agents to be involved in a single transaction: one representing the seller and another representing the buyer. Form I is the official agreement that governs the relationship between these two professionals.
The split itself is negotiable. A commission-split agreement of 50/50 is common. Most Dubai brokerages use a 70/30 split when one agent supplies the buyer and another lists the property. The market has settled on these conventions, but they are precisely that — conventions, not rules. In large or complex deals, the commission split between agencies can be negotiated between brokerages before the deal closes.
The problem is that the negotiation often happens informally. An agent calls a colleague, they agree on 50/50, and both assume the other understood the terms the same way. Then the deal closes and the ambiguities surface: 50% of whose commission — the full 2% or only the listing side? After or before VAT is deducted? Paid when — at transfer, or only after the cheque clears the brokerage account? Paid to whom — directly to the agent or to the brokerage, which then pays the agent on its own internal schedule?
None of those questions are hypothetical. They come up in disputes regularly. And without a written agreement, they are unanswerable in any objective sense.
VAT adds another layer
Commission must be agreed in a written contract (Form A, B, or I, depending on the deal). When agents agree verbally on a figure, they frequently fail to specify whether VAT — charged at 5% on sales commissions and on commercial rental commissions — is included in or added to the split figure. On an AED 3 million sale with a 2% commission, the VAT component alone is AED 3,000. On a split, the question of who absorbs it and whether it has been separately invoiced matters both practically and for compliance purposes. Agents must issue VAT-compliant invoices. A verbal arrangement produces no invoice, compliant or otherwise.
The off-plan variant: developer pays, dispute still happens
In off-plan transactions the commission structure is different. The agent’s commission on an off-plan unit is paid by the developer. This is a major structural difference from secondary-market sales, where the buyer pays a 2% commission separately. For off-plan properties, the commission may vary depending on the project, developer, and brokerage agreement. Typically, the range is between 2% to 8%.
This does not eliminate co-brokerage disputes — it changes the venue for them. In an off-plan deal where two brokerages collaborate, the developer pays the registered selling brokerage. That brokerage is then supposed to pass through the co-broker’s share. But “supposed to” — without a Form I and without a documented, agreed timeline — is just another verbal arrangement. The co-broker has no direct claim against the developer. Their claim is against the brokerage that received the money, and if there is no written agreement, that claim is difficult to establish and time-consuming to pursue.
It is also worth being clear about what escrow means in this context. Under Law No. 8 of 2007, all off-plan payments from buyers must go into a project-specific escrow account. Buyer installments are paid into a project-specific escrow account held at a RERA-approved bank, never into the developer’s general operating accounts. This is the escrow mechanism — a legal protection for buyers. Brokerage commission does not sit inside that escrow structure; it flows separately from developer to brokerage once the sale is registered. The escrow law protects the buyer’s capital. It does nothing to protect the co-broker’s share of the fee if there is no written arrangement between the brokerages.
When the rental market is involved
For residential lettings, the commission structure is different again. The 5% rental commission 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 Centre.
In a co-brokerage rental deal — a listing agent and a tenant’s agent collaborating on a lease — the same principles apply. Without a signed agreement, the split is verbal. The payment typically comes in the form of a commission cheque presented alongside the tenant’s post-dated cheques for rent and the Ejari registration. Those payments happen simultaneously at the point of signing. If the split between agents was never documented, there is no mechanism for the co-operating agent to claim their share at that moment, and no clear remedy if the receiving brokerage withholds or disputes it.
Ejari is the official system used to register tenancy contracts in Dubai and is an important part of the emirate’s rental regulatory framework. Landlords and tenants should ensure that applicable tenancy contracts are properly registered. A tenancy contract that is not Ejari-registered has no legal standing in Dubai for dispute purposes. The same logic applies at the agent level: an arrangement that is not documented has no standing when a dispute arises.
The RDSC handles landlord-tenant disputes. The Rental Disputes Settlement Centre is the specialised judicial body established by the Dubai Government to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants in the Emirate of Dubai. It handles everything from unpaid rent claims and illegal eviction cases to security deposit disputes and rent increase objections. Agent-to-agent commission disputes, however, sit primarily with DLD and RERA rather than the RDSC. 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.
Where disputes actually go — and what they cost
When a commission split breaks down, agents face a choice: absorb the loss, negotiate informally, or pursue a formal complaint. Formal complaints are not free, fast, or simple.
A complaint to DLD/RERA opens a regulatory process. The key question is always evidentiary: what did you agree, and how do you prove it? Commission disputes are fact-specific — who introduced whom, what was signed, what was paid. If the answer to “what was signed” is “nothing,” the complaint is structurally weak from the start.
Gathering all evidence — emails, invoices, messages, and any written communication that supports your case — is essential. In the absence of a signed Form I, agents find themselves reconstructing events from WhatsApp messages, email threads, and the testimony of clients who would rather not be involved in a professional dispute between their agents. This is not a strong position.
The agent who filed the complaint also has to keep working during the process. Every hour spent in a regulatory procedure is an hour not spent on a live deal. The cost of an unresolved dispute is not just the money that was not paid; it is the opportunity cost of the time consumed pursuing it.
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.
What a signed Form I actually gives you
Form I is an agent-to-agent collaboration agreement signed by two RERA-certified brokers from different agencies who are working together on the same property transaction. It defines the commission split, protects each agent’s client relationship, and ensures that neither broker can be bypassed or excluded from the deal without consequences.
Every form that RERA mandates is legally binding the moment it is signed. This means the terms, obligations, and commission agreements written into these documents are enforceable under Dubai law. An agent cannot fall back on verbal agreements or informal understandings once a deal is underway. The paperwork defines everything.
That is the point. The paperwork defines everything — including the moment and mechanism of payment. Brokerage laws in Dubai mandate that commission must be tied to a written agreement, often included in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Once conditions of the contract are met, the commission becomes payable.
When the Form I is in place alongside the Form A and Form F, the entire chain of entitlement is documented. The listing agent has a documented relationship with the seller. The buyer’s agent has a documented relationship with the buyer via Form B. Both agents have a documented relationship with each other. When the deal closes and the commission is paid, every party knows exactly what is owed, to whom, and when.
In cases where two agencies collaborate, the commission is split between them. This split is regulated through official RERA forms, ensuring transparency and compliance.
Without that chain, you are not operating in a regulated framework. You are operating on goodwill — and goodwill is not an instrument that Dubai courts or regulatory bodies can enforce.
The agent’s actual vulnerability points
There are three specific moments in a co-brokerage deal where the absence of a written agreement causes the most damage:
Between introduction and agreement. The buyer’s agent brings the client to a viewing on the listing agent’s property. The relationship is established. But if no Form I is signed, the listing agent has acquired knowledge of a specific motivated buyer. There is nothing legally preventing them from working with that buyer directly — other than professional ethics, which are not universally observed.
Between Form F and transfer. The MOU is signed, the deposit is paid, and now everyone waits for the NOC, the mortgage approval, or the completion of a snag list on an off-plan unit. This period can run weeks or months. During that time, the listing agent’s brokerage holds the commission cheque or is owed the commission, and the co-broker’s share has no legal instrument backing it. If the deal falls through and is restructured, the original verbal agreement is even harder to enforce.
At the moment of payment. The commission lands in the listing brokerage’s account. There is no Form I. The listing brokerage is under no documented obligation to pay out any specific amount to any specific party at any specific time. They may intend to do so, they may have always intended to do so, but intent is not obligation — and the receiving brokerage’s accounts team will not process a disbursement to a third party without a documented basis for it.
Each of these is a point where a deal that everyone thought was done can collapse into a dispute.
The principle that removes the friction
All of the above resolves down to one structural truth: a split that is agreed in writing, by both licensed agents, before the client pays, is the only split that is legally sound.
This is not a procedural nicety. It is how the regulatory framework was designed to work. Making Form I a standard part of any co-brokerage arrangement is not excessive caution. It is basic professional practice.
The ideal outcome — the one that eliminates every one of the vulnerability points described above — is a deal where both agents are paid simultaneously, at the moment of commission release, on amounts that were agreed and documented before the client entered the picture. No waiting for one brokerage to pay another. No relying on the goodwill of a colleague you may not know well. No reconstructing events from a WhatsApp thread. Just a completed transaction in which both agents receive what they were owed because the paperwork said so from the start.
That is the standard to build toward. Not because it is idealistic, but because it is the only version of a split deal that cannot later be contested.
Agents who make Form I non-negotiable — who refuse to proceed with viewings, introductions, or any collaborative work until it is signed — are not being difficult. They are operating exactly as RERA’s framework intends. They are also the agents who get paid on time, every time, without having to spend the recovery period chasing money that should have been settled at the transfer table.
The law cannot help you much once the deal is done and the form was never signed. The law’s position is clear and consistent: document it first. Everything after that is enforcement.
