The Deal That Felt Done Until It Wasn’t
Two agencies bring the same buyer to the same off-plan launch. Agency A has been working the client for six weeks — site visits, payment plan comparisons, finance conversations. Agency B has a developer relationship and registers the client in the developer’s system under its own name two hours before the SPA is signed. The developer pays one commission cheque, and it goes to Agency B. Agency A gets nothing.
Or try this one: a co-broking arrangement is agreed verbally at 50/50. The developer pays the full commission to the listing agency three weeks after handover. The listing agency holds on to it. The co-broker’s follow-up emails go unanswered. There is no signed co-broking agreement. There is no paper trail. There is no leverage.
Both situations happen regularly in Dubai. Neither is exotic. The mechanics that cause them — how off-plan commission actually flows, how splits are agreed and proven, and what “dispute” looks like in practice — are worth understanding before you are standing in one.
How Off-Plan Commission Actually Flows
Before getting into what breaks, it helps to be precise about how the money is supposed to work.
For off-plan sales, the commission is paid by the developer of the project, and the commission percentage can vary from developer to developer and from project to project. That is the first structural fact: the buyer is not the payer. The developer is. Usually no direct agency commission is paid by the buyer on developer off-plan launches — the developer normally pays the agent from the project’s marketing budget.
This has an important consequence that many agents do not fully internalise: the commission is not a fee negotiated at the point of sale between you and your client. It is a payment that comes from the developer’s account, on the developer’s timeline, to whichever brokerage or brokerages the developer has decided are entitled to it. The moment the developer makes that decision, all of the downstream splits — between agencies, between an agency and its own agents — have to come out of whatever the developer releases.
For off-plan properties, the commission may vary depending on the project, developer, and brokerage agreement. Typically, the range is between 2% to 8%. Some launches run higher for a launch window and then drop. Some developers tier the commission based on the number of units an agency has sold historically. Understanding where you sit in a developer’s tier structure before you bring a client to a project matters more than most agents admit.
The mechanics of the buyer’s transaction itself are regulated. Under Dubai Law No. 8 of 2007, all buyer payments for off-plan properties must be held in a RERA-registered escrow account controlled by a licensed escrow agent, not by the developer directly. The developer draws down from that escrow account only as construction milestones are certified by RERA. Commission, however, is typically paid from the developer’s operating budget — not from the escrow account — and comes through on the developer’s schedule, which may be 30 days after the SPA, 60 days, or tied to the receipt of a certain percentage of the purchase price. This payment timing matters, because the longer commission takes to arrive, the more time there is for disagreements to develop.
How a Split Is Supposed to Be Agreed
When two agencies co-broke an off-plan deal, the split negotiation should happen before the client meets the developer. The co-broking agreement — who introduced the client, what each side is entitled to, and what percentage each takes — needs to be in writing, signed by authorised representatives of both agencies, before anyone registers the client anywhere.
In large or complex deals, the commission split between agencies can be negotiated between brokerages before the deal closes. That is the correct approach. The problem in practice is that many splits are agreed in a WhatsApp message, in a rushed phone call while standing in a developer sales gallery, or not at all — with both agents assuming the other understands the arrangement.
If two agents cooperate, the commission split should be agreed between them and should not become a surprise extra cost for the customer. Never assume “the other side is paying” unless it is written in the offer, form or invoice.
The written agreement needs to specify at minimum:
- The names and RERA registration numbers of both agencies
- The specific project, unit, and buyer the arrangement covers
- The split percentage (e.g., 50/50, 60/40, and which side gets which portion)
- When payment is triggered (at SPA, at a percentage of the purchase price being received, at handover)
- How the VAT element is handled on both sides
On that last point: value added tax of 5% applies to real estate agent commissions in Dubai. This is a federal tax introduced in the UAE in 2018, and it applies to most professional services including real estate brokerage. If Agency A is VAT-registered and Agency B is not — or vice versa — the invoicing between them needs to reflect this accurately. The brokerage must be VAT-registered and provide a valid tax invoice. VAT applies to both sales and rental commissions. Co-broking agreements that are silent on VAT tend to generate arguments about whether the split is of the gross commission figure or the net-of-VAT figure.
How a Dispute Actually Starts
Disputes over off-plan commission rarely start as disputes. They start as delays, misunderstandings, or assumptions — and then harden into disputes when one agency realises it is not being paid and has no clean way to prove it should be.
Here are the most common pressure points:
Client Registration Conflicts
Developers in Dubai typically require that a buyer be registered under a specific brokerage in their system before the SPA is signed. The developer initiates the registration by uploading details of the sale agreement onto the Oqood platform. If two brokerages have both worked with the same client, the question of whose registration counts — and therefore who receives the commission — can become deeply contentious.
Some developers have their own internal policies about what happens when the same client is registered by two different brokerages. Some will pay the first to register. Some will pay the agent who was present at signing. Some will attempt to mediate. None of those policies are standardised across the market, which means an agent who relies on a developer’s internal goodwill to resolve a dual-registration dispute is relying on something that has no legal teeth.
Payment Delays and Moving Goalposts
Even when there is no dispute about who the commission goes to, off-plan commissions can take weeks or months to arrive. Developers cite their own cash flow cycles. Some tie commission releases to the receipt of a certain percentage of the purchase price from the buyer. When payment plan deals have drawn-out schedules — which is exactly why many buyers choose off-plan in the first place — the commission triggers get pushed further out.
In the meantime, if two agencies have a verbal co-broking arrangement, the agency that received the developer’s cheque is holding the other agency’s money. Without a signed agreement specifying the timeline for onward payment, the co-broker has no contractual mechanism to demand it on any particular date. The dispute begins the moment the holding agency finds a reason not to pay immediately: a question about who really did more work, a dispute about whether the split was 50/50 or 60/40, a claim that additional costs need to be deducted first.
The “Our Client” Argument
This is the most human and the hardest to resolve. Both agencies genuinely believe they brought the buyer. Agency A met the client at a property exhibition three months ago, sent site visit invitations, gave detailed brochures, and followed up twice a week. Agency B met the same client through a referral, conducted one site visit, and was the agency present when the client decided to sign.
Who introduced the client? Who caused the sale? These are not always the same question, and developers are not equipped to adjudicate them. When they do weigh in — which they sometimes do — they are making a commercial decision, not a legal one.
Disputes over commission are among the most common real estate complaints in Dubai. Common scenarios include: buyer or tenant refuses to pay after the deal closes — the agent showed the property, facilitated the deal, but the client claims no written agreement existed. The same dynamic applies between agencies: one side claims to have done the work, the other side holds the paperwork.
What the Dispute Actually Looks Like in Practice
Once relations break down, an agency that believes it is owed a co-broking split has a limited set of options.
The first move is almost always direct negotiation: emails, calls, and increasingly formal written demands. Many disputes are resolved here, either because the holding agency pays to preserve a business relationship or because the evidence is clear enough to be embarrassing. But if that fails, what comes next?
Filing with RERA. RERA monitors developers’ conduct, licenses Dubai real estate practitioners, and tracks the progress of the construction. RERA is the regulatory control wing of the Dubai Land Department. The agency is responsible for licensing agents, registering off-plan escrow accounts, and maintaining the Trakheesi system for all real estate activity. Because RERA licenses and regulates brokerages, a commission complaint between two licensed agencies is within its oversight remit. After the information is verified by the complaint administrator and the case is handed over to the sector coordinator, RERA starts a formal dispute resolution process. The process is intended to have quick conclusions.
However, realistic expectations matter here. Go in with realistic expectations. Many disputes — especially those involving compensation, refunds, or contract termination — ultimately need to be resolved through the courts, arbitration, or a negotiated settlement rather than a RERA ruling alone. RERA’s mediation works best when the documentation is clear and both sides are cooperative. When the underlying dispute is about who did what and who was owed what, and there is no signed co-broking agreement, RERA cannot conjure evidence that does not exist.
Dubai Courts. Commission disputes of substance can be filed as civil claims. If the RERA resolution is not satisfactory, or the developer does not comply with the order, you can escalate the matter to the Dubai Courts or the specialized Property Court. Court proceedings take time and money. The RERA mediation stage typically takes 30 to 60 days. If escalation is needed, total resolution time including court proceedings is typically 12 to 24 months. For a commission dispute between two agencies over a single unit, the economics of a 12-to-24-month court fight often do not make sense — which is exactly what the agency holding the money relies on.
Losing the relationship. Whatever formal route is pursued, co-broking relationships in Dubai run on trust and personal reputation. An agency that goes into formal dispute proceedings against another agency will not co-broke with that agency again. In a market where most top listings cycle through a small network of brokerages, losing access to a particular agency’s inventory or referral pipeline has a real cost that outlasts the dispute itself.
What Makes an Agent’s Position Strong or Weak
If a dispute reaches any form of adjudication — RERA, courts, or even a serious commercial negotiation — the strength of an agent’s position depends almost entirely on documentation.
A strong position looks like this:
- A signed co-broking agreement on agency letterhead, with both parties’ RERA registration numbers, specifying the split and the trigger date
- WhatsApp or email threads that confirm the verbal terms discussed before the agreement
- Evidence that the agent’s brokerage introduced the client (CRM records, email correspondence with the client, signed Form B where applicable)
- A record of the client registration with the developer under the agent’s brokerage
- A copy of the developer’s commission letter or payment confirmation that names the project and unit
A weak position looks like this:
- A verbal agreement and nothing else
- A WhatsApp message that says “50/50 yeah?” with a thumbs-up reply
- Client registration under the other brokerage’s name, even if the other agency registered them late
- No Form B, no signed representation agreement, no written evidence of who brought whom to whom
It is essential that all commission terms are documented in writing before proceeding with any deal. This includes the percentage, the party responsible for payment, and when the commission is due. Verbal agreements should be avoided, as they can lead to misunderstandings.
This is not just about the formality of documentation. It is about what happens to memory when money is on the table. Two people can have the same conversation and genuinely recall it differently when a commission cheque is in dispute. The written record does not just prove what was agreed — it removes the possibility that the disagreement was ever about what was agreed.
The Developer’s Position in All of This
Developers occupy an awkward position in agent co-broking disputes. They are not a party to the co-broking arrangement. Their obligation is to pay commission to the brokerage (or brokerages) they have contracted with under their own broker agreement — typically structured as a broker registration, a commission letter, or a developer portal agreement. How that commission is then split between co-broking agencies is, in the developer’s view, an internal matter for the agencies.
Every real estate agent operating in Dubai must hold a valid RERA licence. This isn’t optional. An unlicensed agent cannot legally collect commission, and any commission paid to an unlicensed agent is not protected under UAE law if a dispute arises. If the agency that registered the client under its name is the agency with the developer relationship, the developer will pay them. Full stop. What happens between Agency A and Agency B after that point is not the developer’s problem, and most developers will say so plainly.
This means that the “go to the developer and ask them to sort it” approach — which many agents try — rarely works. A developer may, out of goodwill or reputational concern, agree to split a commission payment directly to two agencies. But they are not required to, and many do not.
If you have signed an agency agreement specifying commission terms and the agent has fulfilled their obligations, refusing to pay can result in legal action against you. The agent may file a complaint with RERA or pursue payment through the courts. But that principle applies to the relationship between an agent and a client — or between two agencies with a signed agreement. Without the agreement, the recourse is much harder to exercise.
What “Registered Under” Actually Means and Why It Matters
In Dubai’s off-plan market, the practical trigger for commission payment is not who introduced the client — it is whose brokerage name is on the client registration in the developer’s system. This creates a dynamic where the act of registration can become competitive and urgent.
When two agencies are in an unspoken race to register the same client, neither will admit they are racing. They are both just “processing the paperwork.” But the outcome — who gets paid — can hinge on a timestamp difference of hours.
The clean way to handle this is for the co-broking agreement to specify, in writing, which agency will handle the developer registration and that the commission will be shared regardless of whose name appears on the developer’s system. This turns a race into a procedure. It removes the incentive to sprint to the developer’s portal and gives both agencies a contractual claim to their portion regardless of the administrative detail.
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 signed form is the mechanism. Without it, “who was registered” becomes the only fact that matters, and that fact can be determined by whoever moved faster, not whoever did more work.
Why Payment Stalls Even When There Is No Dispute
Even in deals where the split is agreed and both agencies are cooperative, commission payments on off-plan transactions can stall for reasons that have nothing to do with bad faith.
Developers may delay releasing commission until:
- The SPA has been signed and a minimum initial deposit received
- The Oqood registration has been completed through DLD (Oqood refers to Dubai’s real estate registration system for off-plan properties, operated by the Dubai Land Department, which plays a critical role in recording and managing contracts between developers and buyers)
- A specific milestone in the payment plan has been reached
- Their own finance team has processed the month’s commission run
None of these delays are technically a dispute. But every day of delay is a day during which the co-broking relationship depends on trust rather than a signed obligation. And trust erodes when money is late without explanation.
The agency holding the developer’s commission cheque is also not always neutral. If they are carrying costs — a split-office arrangement, a referral fee owed to a third party, a team’s salary month — there can be informal pressure to delay the onward payment. This is not necessarily malicious. It is cash flow. But for the agency owed money, it feels exactly like a dispute.
A co-broking agreement that specifies a timeline — “payment to be made to Agency B within five business days of receipt by Agency A from the developer” — converts a trust arrangement into a contractual one. Late payment under a contract is actionable. Late payment under a handshake is a phone call that gets avoided.
The Proof You Need Before the Deal Is Done
By the time a dispute is in motion, the evidence gathering is harder. The time to build a clean file is before the deal, during the deal, and at the moment of commission payment — not after things go wrong.
Here is what a solid file looks like:
- Signed co-broking agreement before the client is registered anywhere, with both agencies’ details, the split, and the payment trigger
- Client introduction record — a dated email or CRM entry that documents when and how the client was introduced, by whom, and to what project
- Developer registration confirmation — a screenshot, portal confirmation, or email from the developer acknowledging both agencies or acknowledging the arrangement
- Commission letter from developer — a formal document naming the project, unit, buyer, commission rate, and which agency it will be paid to
- VAT invoices — a properly issued tax invoice from the agency receiving commission to the agency paying onward, meeting Federal Tax Authority standards, with a valid Tax Registration Number
- Signed confirmation of receipt — once payment is made from one agency to the other, a written receipt or bank confirmation that specifies what the payment covers
A proper commission file protects both sides if a dispute occurs. It also makes the transaction cleaner at every stage — faster to process, easier to audit, less dependent on personal goodwill.
What Escalation Costs
When a co-broking dispute does move beyond negotiation, the costs are rarely limited to legal fees.
There is the time cost: the calls, the emails, the formal complaint preparation, the RERA mediation sessions. If the dispute is more than AED 100,000, hire a property consultant or a lawyer registered with DLD. Legal representation at that level has a price that eats into whatever commission is being fought over.
There is the relationship cost: other co-broking opportunities with the same agency, the same developer, and the same network of agents who hear about the dispute through the market.
There is the opportunity cost: the mental bandwidth spent on a dispute that could have been spent closing the next deal.
And there is the outcome cost. Even if RERA mediation succeeds, the process “typically takes 30 to 60 days” according to reported timelines. Court proceedings run longer. A commission payment that should have taken three weeks from deal close can take two years to recover — if it is recovered at all.
All of that cost starts from one missing piece of paper. The co-broking agreement that should have been signed before the client walked into the developer’s showroom.
The Principle That Eliminates Most of the Risk
The dispute patterns described in this article share a common architecture. There is a deal. There is a commission. The split is unclear, unwritten, or both. And the payment — from developer to agency, or from one agency to another — is controlled by whichever side currently holds the money.
The solution is not complicated. It is not even particularly difficult to execute. It requires agreeing the split in writing, signed by all parties, before the client is registered. It requires that every party expected to receive a portion of the commission be identified at that moment — not discovered after the developer pays. And it requires that the payment from one agency to another follows the same timeline logic as the developer’s payment to the first agency, so money does not pool in one place longer than it needs to.
When the split is agreed before the client pays, and every party is paid at the same time from the same event, there is no holding period. There is no waiting. There is no pressure that builds in the gap between commission receipt and commission distribution. There is no reason for the conversation to turn into a dispute, because there is no moment of discretion where one agency gets to decide when — or whether — to pay the other.
This is the principle worth internalising: a commission split is only as reliable as the moment it is signed. The later that signature happens, the more the arrangement depends on goodwill, memory, and the other side’s cash flow. In a market as fast-moving and as relationship-dependent as Dubai’s off-plan sector, goodwill is real — but it is not a contract.
Sign the split before the deal closes. Every time. Without exception.
