---
title: "How to handle a client who plays two agents against each other"
description: "A plain-speaking guide for Dubai agents on stopping commission disputes before they start when a buyer or seller shops multiple brokers."
category: "client-reputation"
readingTime: 12
---
## The Scene Every Dubai Agent Has Lived Through

The buyer has been warm for three weeks. WhatsApp replies within minutes, two viewings done, a shortlist of three units in Business Bay. Then — silence for four days. When they resurface, the message is chipper: "We found something with another agent, but we like your unit better. Can your commission be 1%?"

Or this version: a seller signs a non-exclusive Form A with two agencies simultaneously, tells each of them they are the "primary" agent, and waits to see who delivers first — then tries to negotiate the commission down at the Form F stage because "the other agent was willing to do it cheaper."

Both situations have the same engine: the client is using the absence of a clear, documented agreement between the agents — and between each agent and the client — as leverage. The commission dispute that follows is almost never about the law; the law is reasonably clear in Dubai. The dispute is about documentation, timing, and whose paper sits on the table at the moment money moves.

This article is about preventing that moment from arising, and about what to do when it already has.

## Why Dubai's Market Structure Makes This Easy for Clients to Do

Dubai's secondary market is unusual in global terms. To avoid confusion and disputes, Dubai allows only up to three agents to list the same property at the same time. That is still three. In practice, many sellers refuse to sign an exclusive mandate because they believe — often correctly — that more agents mean more eyeballs. The consequence is that a buyer dealing with three agencies may be looking at the identical unit through each of them, and none of those agencies has any visibility into what the others are showing or promising.

Signing an exclusive Form A and then engaging additional brokers is a breach of contract and exposes the owner to commission claims from the exclusive broker. But when the mandate is non-exclusive, there is no breach — the seller is entitled to work with multiple agencies. That is the legal reality. A client who understands this will use it.

Buyers are no different. Commission must be agreed in a written contract — Form A, B, or I, depending on the deal. Form B is the buyer-agency agreement, and most agents in Dubai do not insist on it being signed before the first viewing. That omission is where the trouble begins. Without a signed Form B, the buyer has not committed to paying you anything. They can walk across the road, sign through a competing agency, and leave you with a viewing history and no claim.

The situation is even more acute in rentals. A tenant views a unit with Agent A, then contacts the landlord directly through a listing posted by Agent B, signs the tenancy contract through B, and Agent A is left arguing that their viewing constitutes an introduction. A recurring dispute: you view a unit with Agent A, later find the same unit listed by Agent B at the same price, and sign through B — then A demands a fee. Without Ejari registration and a paper trail tying Agent A's introduction to the signed tenancy, that demand goes nowhere at the Rental Disputes Settlement Centre.

The client who plays two agents against each other is not doing anything illegal. They are exploiting a documentation gap. The way to handle it is to close the gap.

## What "Playing Agents Against Each Other" Actually Looks Like in Practice

There are three distinct versions of this problem, and they require slightly different responses.

### Version 1: The Fee Negotiation at Form F

The deal is nearly done. The buyer has accepted the price. The seller is ready. Then, at the Form F (MOU) stage, the buyer mentions that another agent had offered to do the deal for 1% rather than the standard 2%. They want a match or they will "give the business" to the other agent.

This is negotiating with a gun that may or may not be loaded. Sometimes there is genuinely another agent involved. Sometimes the other agent has not shown them anything and this is a pure bluff. Either way, the buyer has chosen this moment deliberately — because at Form F stage, the agent has done most of the work and is least willing to walk away.

The commission cheque is usually collected by the agent at the time of signing the Form F (MOU). However, the agent does not cash it immediately. Agent commission typically becomes legally due upon Form F signing. The buyer knows this. They know you have invested weeks and that the path of least resistance is to drop 0.5% to close. Do not make that decision under pressure and without thinking about what precedent it sets with this client, and with the market more broadly.

### Version 2: The Split Ambush in a Co-Broke Deal

Two agencies are working together on a deal. One holds the listing (Form A with the seller), one holds the buyer (or has introduced a buyer). Neither has signed a written agent-to-agent agreement — commonly referred to as a Form I or A2A — before proceeding. The deal closes, the commission cheque goes to the listing agency, and the introducing agency discovers that the split they thought was 50/50 is now being offered at 30/70, or not being offered at all, with the listing agency claiming the buyer "could have come from anywhere."

When two brokers collaborate on a deal, the commission structure must be agreed upon in advance. Without a clear Agent-to-Agent agreement (commonly known as Form I), many agents end up in costly disputes or losing their commission entirely.

The client in this version is not actively scheming; they may not even know about the split dispute. But they benefit from it because it distracts both agencies, and in some cases they use the confusion to negotiate their own fee down, claiming that since "the agents can't agree," the deal structure should be reconsidered.

### Version 3: The Parallel Mandate Play

The seller lists with two agencies on a non-exclusive basis. Both agencies bring buyers. Both agencies believe they have the deal. The seller takes an offer from one buyer (introduced by Agency A), negotiates it to a price that the other agency's buyer (Agency B) had already offered, and then signs with Agency B's buyer — at which point Agency A claims commission for being the effective cause of the price discovery.

This is the most legally complex version. The form should record the agreed percentage, the responsible party, the trigger event for payment (typically Form F execution or DLD transfer), and VAT treatment. If Agency A has a signed Form A and can demonstrate that their buyer's offer materially influenced the outcome, they have a basis for a claim. But without that documentation, the "effective cause" argument is extremely hard to win at the RERA level.

## The Documentation Stack That Closes the Gap

Handling a client who plays agents against each other begins months before the problem occurs. It begins with the documents you get signed at the start of the relationship, not at the end.

### With the client: Forms A, B, and F

**Form A** (listing agency agreement with the seller) must clearly state the commission percentage, the trigger event for payment, and — critically — the VAT treatment. Verbal variations are not enforceable, and disputes invariably default to the written terms. If you verbally agreed to drop from 2% to 1.5% with the seller during a difficult negotiation, that verbal agreement will not protect you if the seller later disputes it.

RERA expects all commission arrangements to be documented in Form A or Form B. Form B, the buyer-agency agreement, is the document most often skipped. Get it signed before the first viewing. Not after. Before. A signed Form B converts the buyer from a casual enquirer into a client who has a documented obligation to you. It does not guarantee they will not shop elsewhere, but it gives you a documented claim if they close through another agency having been introduced by you.

**Form F**, the MOU, is where commission for a sales deal is formally recorded. Form F includes specifics on the commission fees for the real estate agents involved, detailing how these fees will be split between the buyer's and seller's agents. Any ambiguity about who pays what and when should be resolved before Form F is signed — not at the signing table.

The commission also needs clarity. If two agents are involved, the parties should know who pays what and when. Do not leave agency commission to a side conversation.

### Between agents: Form I (the A2A agreement)

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. Form I ensures fair cooperation and eliminates disputes between agencies.

In Dubai, there is no official law dictating the exact split for agent-to-agent commissions, but the following are commonly accepted standards: sale transactions are usually a 50/50 split of the total commission; rental transactions are usually a 50/50 split, but sometimes negotiable; and with exclusive listings, the listing agent sometimes offers a smaller split such as 60/40.

Whatever the agreed split, it must be in writing before the deal progresses. Negotiating verbally is not enough. You should always secure the commission split with a written agreement — typically using Form I.

If the other agency refuses to sign a Form I before you introduce your buyer or share your client's details, that refusal is your answer. An agency that will not commit to a split in writing before the deal is an agency that intends to decide the split after — on their own terms.

### Proof of introduction

In any co-broke situation, the documentation of who introduced whom and when is what separates a successful commission claim from a failed one at the RDSC or before RERA. Keep:

- Timestamped WhatsApp threads with the client referencing the specific property
- Email trails between agencies agreeing to collaborate on a specific unit with a specific buyer
- Viewing records — date, time, address, client name
- The signed Form I, dated before the viewing or before the client's offer is submitted

Thorough documentation will always strengthen your position. This is not bureaucratic paranoia. It is the difference between having a claim and having evidence of a claim.

## When the Client Is Already Playing the Game: How to Respond

If you are reading this mid-deal — the client has already surfaced with the "another agent offered me less" gambit — here is how to handle it without losing the deal or your commission.

### Don't negotiate under ambiguity

Before you discuss the commission, establish the facts. Ask directly: "Can you share who the other agent is and which property they showed you?" You are not being aggressive — you are being professional. If they refuse to name the agent or the property, the competing offer probably does not exist in any actionable form.

If it does exist — if there is genuinely another agency who has shown them something comparable — your position depends on what you have signed with the client. A signed Form B means you have a documented relationship. Use that. Remind the buyer, calmly, that they signed an agreement appointing you as their agent, that the agreement specifies your commission, and that any variation to that agreement needs to be documented in writing.

### Do not match a number you cannot sustain

If the client wants 1% and your brokerage's economics require 2%, dropping to 1% for this deal sets a market price for you — in the client's mind, in the building's WhatsApp group, and in your own deal pipeline when this client refers their friends. Every agent who has been in Dubai long enough has given away commission on deal one and then received referrals who open the conversation with "my friend said you did 1%."

The stronger position, paradoxically, is to hold: "Our commission is 2% plus VAT, as agreed and documented. That's what we charge for the service we deliver. If you've found a better fit elsewhere, we wish you well." Most of the time, this call is not made because the buyer has no real alternative. They are testing you.

### Escalate cleanly if there's a genuine co-broke dispute

If the dispute is between you and another agency — the listing agent is refusing to pay the agreed split, or is disputing the introduction — escalate through proper channels, not through the client. If a commission dispute arises, RERA's Rental Disputes Settlement Centre handles the case. Having a written agreement is essential to win any dispute.

The RDSC process is structured and accessible. Upon registering your case, your file will be transferred to the Arbitration Department, which aims to resolve such cases within 15 days. After 15 days, a resolution is provided. For commission disputes between licensed agents, the DLD and RERA channels are the correct forum — not a heated exchange in front of the client, which only makes both agencies look unprofessional and gives the client grounds to negotiate both of you down.

In a dual-agency dispute, the paper trail determines the outcome. If you have the paper trail — signed Form I, viewing records, timestamped correspondence — you have the basis for a credible claim. If you do not, the process of filing will clarify very quickly that your position is weak.

## The VAT Detail That Trips Up Commission Discussions

When a client starts negotiating commission, they often quote only the percentage. Make sure you and the client are talking about the same number. On a resale or secondary-market purchase, the buyer conventionally pays 2% of the agreed sale price plus 5% VAT. VAT does not apply to residential rentals, but agents must issue VAT-compliant invoices on sales commission.

A client who says "the other agent offered 1%" may mean 1% plus VAT, or they may mean 1% total. The ambiguity is not always deliberate, but it creates room for a subsequent dispute about what was agreed. Any discussion about commission — whether at the start of a relationship or during a negotiation — should specify the percentage, the VAT treatment, and who writes the cheque to whom.

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.

## The Off-Plan Dimension

Off-plan deals have a different commission mechanics: the developer typically pays the agency directly, and the agency then pays the agent. The buyer pays nothing to the agent. This structure removes one layer of client leverage — the buyer cannot credibly threaten to "go through another agent for less" because they are not paying the commission in the first place.

But the parallel-agent problem still exists on the agency-to-developer side. If the same buyer has been registered under multiple agency names with the developer's system, commission disputes arise between agencies — not clients. Developers resolve these by reference to who registered the client first in their system, and the timestamp on that registration is decisive.

If you are working off-plan and introducing a buyer who has already been to other developers' showrooms or has existing contacts at the agency, register the client formally with the developer as early as possible. That timestamp is your Form I equivalent in the off-plan world. Note also that off-plan property sales by developers involve regulated escrow accounts — the actual funds from buyers are held in a DLD-regulated escrow account dedicated to that project — which is entirely separate from how agents are paid. Agent commission in off-plan deals comes from the developer's sales budget, not from the escrow account, and should not be confused with it.

## Reputation, Not Just Revenue

There is a practical reason beyond immediate commission to handle this situation carefully. The client who plays agents against each other is not necessarily a bad person — they may simply be doing what they perceive as rational consumer behaviour in a market where they see no cost to it. Some of them, handled correctly, become excellent long-term clients because they respect an agent who holds their position professionally.

The agents who lose these clients — and their commissions — are usually the ones who either capitulated immediately (setting a precedent of weakness) or reacted emotionally (burning the relationship). The middle path is professional firmness grounded in documentation.

Your reputation in Dubai real estate is not just what clients say about you. It is what other agencies say about you. An agent who honours their co-broke agreements, signs Form I before sharing buyer details, documents every introduction, and resolves disputes through proper channels rather than client pressure is an agent other agencies want to work with. That professional standing is a business asset. Protect it the same way you protect your commission — with paperwork, timing, and consistency.

## Why the Upfront, Signed, Paid-at-Once Structure Is the End of This Problem

Every scenario described in this article — the Form F ambush, the split dispute, the parallel mandate play — has one thing in common: it relies on a time gap between when the work is done and when the commission is documented and paid. That gap is where leverage lives.

When the split between agents is agreed and signed in a Form I before a single viewing happens, there is no ambiguity to exploit at the closing table. When the client has signed a Form B before the first showing, there is no "the other agent offered less" conversation that carries any legal weight. When commission is documented in Form F with VAT treatment explicitly stated and a manager's cheque collected at signing, the "we can renegotiate when you actually get paid" tactic has no runway.

The principle is simple: every party — buyer or seller, listing agency or introducing agency — should know exactly what they owe and what they are owed, in writing, before the deal moves forward. And the ideal outcome is that all payments land at the same moment: at transfer, at Form F execution, at the point where the deal is done and there is nothing left to renegotiate.

That simultaneity is not idealistic. It is the logical design of a transaction where no single party can use the sequence of events as leverage against another. When everyone is paid at once, from the same transaction, against the same documented agreement, there is nothing left to dispute. The client who would have played two agents against each other never gets the opening to try — because the opening was closed before it existed.

That is the goal. Build every deal toward it.