---
title: "How fee-shaving happens at the finish line and how to stop it"
description: "Why Dubai agents lose commission at the close, how split disputes start, and the one discipline that prevents both."
category: "commission-cashflow"
readingTime: 12
---
## The moment everything felt agreed — and then wasn't

The deal has been running for six weeks. The listing agent brought the property to market under a Trakheesi-permitted listing. A second agency introduced a qualified buyer. Both sides worked the negotiation, the price was agreed, and the Form F (MOU) was drafted. Everyone shook hands, figuratively or literally, and the buyer handed over the manager's cheque for the 10% deposit. Then came the quiet moment when both agencies turned to face each other and the question nobody had properly answered surfaced: how are we splitting this?

That question — answered late, answered vaguely, or not answered in writing at all — is where fee-shaving lives. It is not always bad faith. Sometimes it is organisational: the principal broker at the listing agency tells their agent one figure while the selling agency's manager interprets the same phone call differently. Sometimes it is deliberate: one side waits to see whether the other will push back, banks on the fact that the selling agent wants their paycheque and will accept whatever is offered rather than blow up a closed deal. Sometimes the shave happens on the client side, not the agent-to-agent side: the seller re-opens the commission conversation at the DLD trustee office, knowing the agent cannot walk away with five minutes to go.

Every working agent in Dubai has seen a version of this. The fix is not complicated, but it requires discipline at the start of a deal rather than the end.

## Why the finish line is where the money gets renegotiated

The structure of a Dubai secondary-market deal creates a natural pressure point. The commission cheque is usually collected at the time of signing the Form F, but is held as security and only cashed on the day of the final transfer at the DLD trustee office, once the title deed has been successfully transferred. That gap — between Form F signing and the trustee-office transfer — can span weeks. During that time, the market can move, buyers can get cold feet, and both agents are essentially carrying the deal on their backs while their commission cheque sits uncashed in someone's drawer.

For a completed (ready) property, the parties typically work through conditions such as obtaining mortgage approval, securing a developer's No Objection Certificate, and settling any existing liabilities on the property before proceeding to the DLD or a Registration Trustee centre to complete the transfer. Each of those conditions is another moment where a client can signal second thoughts — or where an opportunistic squeeze on the fee can be introduced.

The squeeze follows a recognisable pattern. The buyer, having completed due diligence and secured mortgage approval, is emotionally invested in the property. The last thing they want is to restart the search. A seller who knows this may suggest that the agents "absorb" a small discount in the interest of keeping the deal alive. The framing is almost always sympathetic: *we need to close the gap on the price; the buyer is stretching already; you have both worked hard and it would be a shame to lose it now.* The implied threat — that the deal collapses and everyone gets nothing — is what makes agents fold at this stage when they would never have agreed to the reduced figure at the beginning.

The same mechanics apply on the agent-to-agent side. An agency that held the listing and relied on a co-broking arrangement without anything signed may try, at the point of payment, to reclassify the split. A verbal agreement to a 50/50 split becomes, in the retelling, a "preliminary discussion subject to management approval." The selling agency, which has already delivered a signed client, has little leverage at that moment without a written record.

If a commission dispute arises, RERA's Rental Disputes Settlement Centre handles the case — and having a written agreement is essential to win any dispute. But agents who end up at the RDSC have already lost time, energy, and often goodwill they will never recover. The goal is to never need that route.

## The forms exist — they are just not being used properly

Dubai's regulatory framework gives agents real tools. The problem is not that the tools are missing; it is that agents reach for them in the wrong order or skip them entirely when the deal feels like it is moving fast.

Form A (listing agreement), Form B (buyer representation agreement), Form F (memorandum of understanding), and Form I (final commission agreement) are the standard RERA forms that govern the agency relationship and commission obligations in a transaction.

These forms need to be signed before an agent can legally claim commission on a deal. If you are a seller and your agent has not asked you to sign a Form A, they do not have a legitimate basis to claim commission if you sell the property.

Most agents understand the Form A/Form B/Form F sequence for their client-facing obligations. Far fewer treat the agent-to-agent documentation with the same rigour. An agent-to-agent (A2A) contract is a formal agreement between two licensed real estate brokers or agencies in Dubai, outlining the terms of collaboration on a shared listing or deal — a key component in co-broking that helps define each party's responsibilities and commission splits, and avoids future disputes.

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 word "form" matters here. It is not enough to agree by WhatsApp message or voice note — though in a dispute those records are better than nothing. What is required is a signed, dated document that captures the total commission, the agreed split percentage, the basis on which each party's share is calculated, and the mechanism by which each party gets paid. This kind of document helps define each party's responsibilities and commission splits, avoiding future disputes — it is a written commitment that protects both brokers and ensures transparency during a real estate transaction.

Form A, Form B, Form F, and Form I are the standard RERA forms that govern the agency relationship and commission obligations in a transaction. Form I specifically addresses commission — yet it is routinely signed late, signed incorrectly, or skipped entirely in favour of a verbal understanding that both sides later remember differently.

### What "properly used" looks like in a co-broke deal

To be concrete: in a secondary-market co-broke on a resale unit:

- The listing agency has a signed Form A from the seller before anything is marketed.
- The selling agency has a signed Form B from the buyer before introducing them to the property.
- Before the listing details and client name are exchanged between agencies, both agencies sign an A2A agreement specifying the split — usually expressed as a percentage of the total commission received from the client, not a fixed dirham figure that becomes irrelevant if the price shifts.
- The Form F covers property and financial details and the commission to be paid to the seller's and buyer's agents.
- The Form F records the name of the real estate brokerage, the commission percentage or amount, and who is responsible for paying it — and by including this in DLD Form F, both parties agree upfront on agency costs, avoiding future disagreements.
- The commission cheque is made payable to the brokerage, not to the individual. Commission should always be paid by cheque made out to the brokerage — this is a RERA requirement and it creates a paper trail that protects both parties if a dispute arises later.

None of this is burdensome. In a well-run agency, it takes minutes. The reason it does not happen consistently is that agents operating in a hot market feel that slowing down to sign paperwork between agencies signals distrust, or that raising the commission split question early will make the other side uncomfortable. That discomfort is brief. The discomfort of fighting for your fee six weeks later — when the deal is closed, the client has transferred, and the other brokerage's principal broker is no longer returning calls — is far worse.

## How fee-shaving happens on the client side

The agent-to-agent split dispute is only one variant. The other happens between the agent and the client, and it follows its own mechanics.

### The "just reduce it a little" conversation

A seller who originally agreed to pay a specific commission percentage may, as the transfer date approaches, decide that they negotiated too generously. The property is now effectively sold — Form F is signed, the buyer is committed, the deposit is in. The agent's leverage appears to have disappeared. The seller's suggestion that the agent "reduce it a little, since the deal is done anyway" lands at a moment of maximum vulnerability.

The counter to this is ensuring that the commission is locked into Form F before it is signed. Agent commission becomes legally due upon Form F signing, and Form F is a binding legal contract — backing out after signing carries financial penalties and potential legal consequences. If the commission figure in the signed Form F is clear and unambiguous, there is no reopening it without the mutual agreement of all parties. An agent who allows the commission to remain vague in the Form F — "to be agreed" or simply left blank — has left the door open for this conversation.

The same principle applies to VAT. The UAE's 5% VAT applies to brokerage commission as a service, calculated on the commission amount — not the property price. The VAT component should be explicit in every commission agreement and in the Form F itself. A client who is surprised by VAT at the trustee office is a client who feels misled, and that feeling has a way of translating into a renewed push on the base commission. Clarity from the beginning prevents this.

### The dual-agent discount squeeze

Where a single agent represents both buyer and seller — a common occurrence in a market without mandatory exclusivity — the pressure is different. Both clients assume the agent should discount because they are earning twice. That assumption is not always unreasonable, and there is no rule against agreeing to it. The problem arises when the agent agrees to a reduced commission verbally on the basis that "we will sort it out at the end," and then discovers at the end that each client remembers a different figure, or that the agent's brokerage has its own minimum floor that the agreed discount would breach.

If the agreement is not exclusive, it is possible to contract with more than one real estate broker. Where an agent holds both sides of a deal, the commission structure — including any dual-representation discount — must be documented in writing before the deal progresses, and ideally before Form F is prepared. The Form F itself should reflect what was actually agreed, not what is convenient to show.

## How the off-plan co-broke creates its own version of this problem

Off-plan deals have a different structure, and the fee-shaving risk is different but equally real.

On a primary off-plan sale, on most primary off-plan launches, the developer pays the broker, so the buyer usually pays no commission directly. The broker's commission comes from the developer's side of the ledger. This changes where the squeeze can come from: instead of the client shaving the agent, the risk is in the inter-agency split and in the timing of the developer's payments.

Developers do not pay commissions at the point of sale. The standard payment schedule for a Dubai real estate brokerage ties commission release to buyer payment milestones. Most developers release 50% of the commission after the buyer's first payment clears and the remaining 50% after the second or third instalment — creating a 30- to 90-day lag between the sale and full commission receipt.

In a co-broke off-plan deal, the selling agency introduces the buyer and earns a share of the commission that the listing/developer-registered agency receives from the developer. If the A2A split agreement is ambiguous about when payment flows — does the selling agency get paid when the first developer tranche arrives, or only when the full commission is received? — there is a natural incentive for the registered agency to delay or re-interpret.

Developers also include clawback clauses to protect against commission fraud: if a buyer cancels within 30 to 60 days of booking, the developer claws back 100% of the commission paid; cancellations within 60 to 180 days typically trigger a 50% to 75% clawback; after 180 days, commissions are generally non-refundable.

A clear A2A agreement on off-plan deals should address clawback allocation directly: if the developer claws back commission because the buyer cancels, who bears that recovery? The registered agency will try to pass it to the selling agency; the selling agency will argue the registered agency controlled the transaction and should absorb it. Without a signed clause addressing this, both agencies end up in a dispute about money that neither of them has.

Only an agent holding an active RERA broker card, working under a brokerage with a valid Dubai trade licence, can lawfully collect commission, and the listing must carry a valid Trakheesi permit. In off-plan, it is worth confirming that the project itself has been properly registered and that the agency holding the developer agreement is the one whose name appears on the commission structure — because being one step removed from that relationship compounds every payment dispute that follows.

## How splits get agreed in practice — and where the gaps are

In Dubai, there is no official law dictating the exact split for agent-to-agent commissions, but sale transactions conventionally use a 50/50 split of the total commission. Rental co-brokes follow similar informal norms. These conventions exist, but conventions are not contracts.

The gaps in practice are specific and worth naming:

**The timing gap.** Relying on verbal agreements, not discussing the commission split until late in the process, assuming a 50/50 split without confirmation, and working with agents who refuse to sign formal documentation — these are the failure modes that lead to disputes. The gap between "we discussed it on the phone" and "we signed it before sharing the client" is where most disputes are born.

**The percentage-of-what gap.** Two agents who agree on "50/50" may mean different things: 50% of the total gross commission paid by the client, 50% of the net commission after the brokerage's internal split, or 50% of whatever the developer pays after whatever the developer decides to pay. That ambiguity is almost never resolved until there is a number on the table, at which point both sides have anchored to different figures.

**The VAT gap.** When the client pays 5% VAT on top of the agreed commission, the VAT goes to the brokerage (for onward payment to the Federal Tax Authority), not to the agent personally. A split agreement that does not clarify whether the percentage is calculated on the net commission or the gross including VAT will create a small but real discrepancy that nobody catches until there is already tension in the relationship.

**The "who pays whom" gap.** In a co-broke where the client pays a single commission cheque to one brokerage, there is a point where money must move from that brokerage to the co-broker's agency. If the agreement does not specify timing — paid simultaneously when the commission clears, or within a defined number of days — the co-broker is essentially extending credit to the other agency and hoping for goodwill.

## What the Ejari-rental side looks like

In rental transactions, the dynamics are slightly different but the principles are the same. For rentals, commission is paid at the time of signing the tenancy contract and handing over the rent cheques. That moment — when the tenant signs the tenancy contract and hands over post-dated cheques covering the rent period — is when the commission should be collected, not afterward.

In Dubai's rental market, post-dated cheques are the norm, and agents sometimes confuse the landlord's cheque-collection sequence with the commission collection sequence. The commission is owed to the agent for arranging the deal, not for managing the subsequent payment of rent. An agent who allows the commission to remain outstanding while the landlord and tenant settle their cheque arrangement has put themselves last in the payment queue.

Practising agents must be registered with RERA and hold a broker card with a broker registration number (BRN). For an Ejari-registered tenancy, the commission arrangement should be in writing before the Ejari registration is completed. An agent whose fee is not documented before Ejari registration may find that documenting it afterward is awkward — the deal is effectively closed in the landlord's eyes, and there is less incentive for anyone to formalise what they owe.

RERA oversees all commission disputes and requires written agreements (Form A / Form B). On a rental co-broke — a listing agent and a tenant's agent collaborating to place a tenant — the A2A split should be signed before either agent shares the other's client details. The rental commission pool is smaller than a sales commission, which makes every dirham of it more sensitive; agents who let rental co-broke splits run on a handshake are routinely surprised when the other party's definition of "what we agreed" is different.

## The documents a dispute-free deal leaves behind

Run through a completed deal that never produced a dispute, and you will find the same documentation trail every time:

- **Form A** signed by the seller and listing agent before marketing begins, with the commission percentage stated clearly.
- **Form B** signed by the buyer and buying agent before property details are exchanged, with the representation relationship and commission obligation clear.
- **A2A agreement** signed by both brokerages before client names, property addresses, or pricing information is shared, specifying the split as a percentage of the total gross commission received from the client, with a payment timing clause.
- **Form F** drafted and signed with the commission figure explicitly stated — no blanks, no "to be agreed," no rounding to a convenient number that differs from what Form A says.
- **Commission cheques** made payable to the brokerage, collected at Form F signing, with VAT addressed on a separate tax invoice issued by the brokerage.
- **Both agencies paid simultaneously** from the same transaction event, not sequentially where one agency must wait on the goodwill of another.

That last point is where most of the residual friction in Dubai's co-broke market lives. The convention where one agency collects the client's full commission cheque and then separately pays the other agency creates a window — sometimes days, sometimes longer — during which money that has been earned sits in someone else's account. Goodwill covers that window most of the time. When it does not, the agent who introduced the buyer finds themselves chasing payment from an agency that has already moved on to the next deal.

## The principle the market already knows but doesn't always apply

Commission disputes are fact-specific — who introduced whom, what was signed, what was paid. That specificity is a clue about where prevention lives: in the facts that are established at the beginning of a deal, not reconstructed from memory at the end.

Dubai does not have a government-mandated fixed commission rate. That flexibility is useful — it allows agents to structure deals creatively and to co-broke across different agency sizes and types. But it also means that every specific deal depends on what the parties themselves agreed, documented, and signed. The regulatory framework — RERA, DLD, the standard forms — provides the architecture. The agents have to choose to use it.

In large or complex deals, the commission split between agencies can be negotiated between brokerages before the deal closes — and agents are required under RERA rules to disclose their commission arrangement to all parties. That disclosure obligation is not a burden; it is an opportunity. An agent who front-loads disclosure, who puts the split in writing before anything else moves, who collects commission simultaneously rather than sequentially, is not being bureaucratic. They are removing every lever that fee-shaving relies on.

The lever is always the same: the moment after a deal is effectively closed, when walking away would hurt everyone including the agent, and the renegotiation is framed as the only alternative to losing everything. The answer to that lever is to have already removed it — by agreeing the split in writing before the client is introduced, by having the commission terms stated clearly in the Form F, and by structuring payment so that every party receives what they are owed at the same moment the deal completes.

Agents who build that discipline into every deal — not just the ones that feel risky — stop having conversations about what someone agreed to on a phone call three weeks ago. They close, they get paid, and they move on. That is not an aspirational outcome. It is what properly documented deals look like.

The split agreed in writing before the first client name is shared. The commission written into the Form F before it is signed. Both agencies paid at the same moment. That sequence — boring, routine, repeatable — is what makes fee-shaving at the finish line structurally impossible rather than merely unlikely.