The call that starts the argument
The deal has closed. Form F is signed, the buyer’s cheque is cleared, and somewhere between the Trustee office and the WhatsApp group, two agencies are suddenly in a standoff. Each one claims the buyer. Each one wants the commission, or at least their share of it. The listing agent says the buyer came to them first. The co-broker says they brought the buyer, walked them through the unit, managed all the questions, and the deal would not have happened without them.
Both agencies have a valid BRN. Both have been in communication with the buyer. Neither has a signed Form I.
This is one of the most common, most preventable, and most corrosive disputes in Dubai real estate — and it almost always starts the same way: two professionals moved fast, trusted the handshake, and skipped the paperwork.
This article is about why that happens, how to determine who is actually right when two agencies clash over a buyer, and how to build your practice so this situation never costs you money or a relationship again.
Why the Dubai market breeds this dispute
Dubai’s secondary market runs on shared listings. There is no true blanket exclusivity culture in most residential segments; for secondary sales, a maximum of three agents can represent a single property, and the same unit routinely appears across multiple portals, listed by multiple brokerages, all holding Form A agreements with the same seller. That is not illegal or unusual — it is how the market moves volume.
The co-brokerage arrangement that results is, in principle, a clean one. 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 — it defines each party’s responsibilities and commission splits, and is designed to avoid future disputes. The logic is simple: the listing agency holds the seller relationship; the co-broker brings the buyer; both contribute; both get paid.
The problem is not the structure. The problem is that the paperwork confirming that structure often gets treated as a formality to be sorted later. And in a market where a deal can move from first viewing to signed Form F inside a week, “later” sometimes never arrives.
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. A verbal commission split agreement is not enforceable under RERA regulations.
That is the core exposure. Once the deal closes and the commission is on the table, an unwritten split is not a split — it is a claim. And when two agencies are both making claims, someone has to figure out who is right.
What “right” actually means here
The question “who is right” in a dual-agency-claim dispute has a specific answer in Dubai’s regulatory framework, and it is not about who made the most calls or spent the most time with the buyer.
Commission disputes are fact-specific — who introduced whom, what was signed, what was paid.
Those three elements — introduction, documentation, payment — are the actual test. Work through each one.
Who introduced the buyer?
In Dubai co-brokerage disputes, the concept of first introduction carries significant weight. The agent who demonstrably brought the buyer to the property — meaning the buyer was not previously aware of that specific unit through another agent — generally has the foundational claim. In Dubai’s cooperative brokerage ecosystem, multiple agencies often work together, and Form I confirms which agent introduced the buyer and how commissions will be shared.
But “introduction” is harder to prove than most agents assume. Buyers in Dubai frequently enquire through multiple portals simultaneously. A buyer who called Agency A three weeks before calling Agency B does not automatically create a clean first-introduction claim for Agency A if Agency A has no record of the viewing, no signed Form B (buyer representation agreement), and no written trail. The buyer themselves may not remember or may not care to be honest about their contact history if it suits them to play agents against each other.
Disputes over commission are among the most common real estate complaints in Dubai. Common scenarios include: a buyer refusing to pay after the deal closes, claiming no written agreement existed; an agent claiming commission on a deal they did not facilitate — where the agent introduced a property months ago, the client found the same property independently later, and the agent claims they are owed commission.
The introduction argument, without documentation, is precisely that — an argument. It is not evidence.
What was signed?
This is where disputes are won and lost. The RERA forms system exists specifically to create a paper trail that makes commission entitlement and split arrangements provable, not just asserted.
Form A (listing agreement), Form B (buyer representation agreement), Form F (memorandum of understanding), and Form I (the inter-agency 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.
For co-brokerage situations specifically, Form I is the operative document. When a listing is managed by another broker, the two agents can sign a Form I — a broker-to-broker agreement that outlines how they will split responsibilities and commission. Form I clearly defines how the total commission will be divided between the listing agent and the buyer’s agent, ensures both agents adhere to RERA’s code of ethics while collaborating, and specifies which agent is responsible for particular tasks. By having a signed Form I, both agents are legally bound to cooperate in the best interest of their clients, preventing potential client-poaching or disputes over fees.
Without it, both agencies have a weakened position. The listing agency can argue that because they hold Form A, the commission belongs to them by default. The co-broker can argue that they were the proximate cause of the sale. Neither argument is airtight if Form I has not been signed.
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. Making Form I a standard part of any co-brokerage arrangement is not excessive caution.
RERA expects all commission arrangements to be documented, and in a dispute that reaches RERA or the Rental Disputes Settlement Centre, the absence of documentation does not favour the party claiming entitlement — it undermines them.
What was paid, and to whom?
Payment mechanics matter too, and they sit within RERA’s requirements. 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.
When a dispute has already started and you are trying to establish who has been paid, or whether payment was made in a way consistent with a legitimate co-brokerage arrangement, the presence or absence of brokerage-level cheques and VAT invoices is material. All commissions are subject to 5% VAT under UAE law, and a proper commission payment generates a tax invoice. A cash payment or a payment to an individual name generates nothing that helps you in a dispute.
The specific scenarios where the claim is contested
Not every two-agency dispute is the same. The dynamic shifts depending on how the deal actually unfolded.
Scenario 1: The listing agent also found the buyer
This is the simplest dispute pattern. Agency A lists the property under Form A. A buyer enquires directly to Agency A, who manages the relationship, shows the unit, negotiates, and closes. Agency B then surfaces claiming they had spoken to the same buyer weeks earlier and shown them a different unit in the same building.
Here, the listing agency’s claim is substantially stronger. Commission is given to agents who contributed to closing the deal. If two or more agents are involved, they should all be compensated, but if only one agent manages to complete the sale, that agent alone is entitled to the full amount. The key word is “contributed.” Showing a buyer a different unit, or having a preliminary conversation that did not advance to the specific transaction, is a thin contribution argument.
Agency B’s claim, without a signed Form I linking them to this specific property and this specific buyer, is very difficult to sustain.
Scenario 2: A genuine co-broke with a disputed split
Agency A lists. Agency B brings the buyer and conducts the viewings. Both know the other is involved. A split is discussed verbally — perhaps over WhatsApp — but Form I is never signed. The deal closes. Agency A collects the full commission from the buyer’s cheque. Agency B demands their share.
This is the scenario where the harm is real on both sides. Agency B did the work. Agency A has the signed paperwork. Without Form I, Agency B risks Agency A approaching the buyer directly and cutting them out of the commission. Equally, Agency A risks a counter-claim of unfair dealing. Form I creates mutual accountability and makes the commission split legally enforceable.
The WhatsApp messages agreeing a 50/50 split may be admissible in a complaint or civil claim as evidence of intent, but they do not constitute a properly documented RERA commission agreement. Be cautious about verbal agreements on commission. Everything should be in writing on the appropriate RERA form. A verbal agreement that commission will be X percentage holds very little weight if a dispute arises, and disputes over commission are not uncommon in a market where transaction values are high.
Scenario 3: The buyer tried to cut both agents out
This one is less common but happens. A buyer, having been shown a property by a co-broker arrangement, contacts the seller or developer directly after the viewings and attempts to conclude the deal without triggering a commission. Both agencies are then trying to recover commission from a buyer who denies the agency relationship.
This is where Form B becomes critical. Form B protects the agent’s right to earn commission if they secure a property for the buyer. If the buyer signed Form B with the co-broker before viewings, the co-broker has a solid basis to claim commission even if the buyer tried to go around them. If the buyer never signed Form B, the claim is much harder to enforce, regardless of how much time the agent invested.
Most agents consider commission earned when the buyer and seller sign the MOU (Form F). This is the standard expectation and is supported by RERA in disputes. But “earned” requires the documentation trail to support it.
Scenario 4: Off-plan, where the developer is paying
In off-plan deals, the commission typically comes from the developer rather than the buyer directly. The developer pays the selling agency, and if a co-broker is involved, the split is agreed between agencies — or should be. 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 developer’s regulated escrow account — the account maintained under Dubai’s off-plan laws to protect buyer payments — holds purchase funds and pays the developer over project milestones. It does not hold or distribute agency commissions. The commission payment from the developer to the agency is a separate transaction, and the split between agencies needs its own documentation. Assuming the developer will “sort it out” or arbitrate between two agencies is a mistake; the developer has a relationship with one registered selling agency, and any internal split dispute is between the brokerages alone.
Where disputes go when they cannot be resolved directly
If two agencies cannot agree between themselves, the escalation path in Dubai is not informal.
The process involves first attempting direct negotiation, then filing a complaint with RERA through the Dubai REST app or the DLD website, where RERA will review evidence including Form A, Form B, and communication records.
The Dubai Land Department regulates registered brokers and handles complaints about broker conduct — this is the route for disputes involving double-dipping, misrepresentation, or fee disputes with a brokerage. The Rental Disputes Settlement Centre (RDSC), despite its name, also handles certain brokerage fee disputes.
Disputes between clients and real estate brokers may concern whether commission is payable, the amount of commission, when commission becomes due, brokerage agreements, responsibilities of the broker, and information provided during the transaction. Evidence may include brokerage agreements, emails, messages, advertisements, offers, and payment records.
That list of evidence types is telling. When RERA or the RDSC reviews a commission dispute, they are looking at the paper trail in its totality — not just what each party says happened. The agency with cleaner documentation wins, almost without exception. Having a written agreement is essential to win any dispute.
The consequence of losing a RERA complaint is not just losing the commission claim. 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. An agent who is found to have collected commission without proper documentation, or withheld a co-broker’s agreed share, faces conduct consequences beyond the financial dispute.
What actually prevents this from happening
The answer to “who is right when two agencies claim the buyer” will, in almost every case, be determined by who documented what and when. That reality has a direct implication for how agents should run their deals.
Sign Form I before you share the buyer
The single most effective protection for a co-brokerage arrangement is signing Form I before the buyer is introduced to the listing agent, not after the deal closes. Any time two brokers collaborate on a listing or share client information, it is best practice to have an A2A agreement in place before sharing full details.
In Dubai’s cooperative brokerage ecosystem, multiple agencies often work together, and Form I confirms which agent introduced the buyer and how commissions will be shared. That confirmation needs to exist before the money is on the table, not when everyone is arguing about it.
The form should specify: which agency is the listing party, which agency is the buyer’s agent, the commission percentage each party is entitled to, and — critically — the buyer’s identity and the specific property. A Form I that is vague about the buyer or the property creates ambiguity that a dispute will exploit. It is important to ensure the form reflects everything discussed — property type, location, and price range — so that expectations are aligned from day one.
Get Form B signed before viewings, not after
The buyer’s representation agreement is not just a compliance document. It is the co-broker’s proof that they had a formalised relationship with the buyer prior to the transaction. Without it, “I introduced this buyer” is a claim; with it, it is documented fact.
Every transaction involving a RERA-licensed broker must reference the broker’s BRN number. Agents without a valid BRN cannot legally receive commission. But beyond BRN validity, Form B ties the buyer to a specific agent for a specific purpose. If the buyer later tries to bypass that agent, or if another agency claims they had the buyer first, the signed Form B with a date prior to any rival agency’s contact becomes the decisive document.
Commission timing and who receives the cheque
Commission becomes payable at Form F (MOU) signing as a general rule. Most agents consider commission earned when the buyer and seller sign the MOU, and this is the standard expectation supported by RERA in disputes. In a co-brokerage deal, both agencies should know at Form F stage exactly what they will receive, when, and in what form. That certainty comes from Form I being signed before the deal closes.
Every contract must clearly state the rate and payment terms upfront. If several agents share work on one property, the total commission is split between them according to agreed roles from the start. Clear terms prevent disputes.
The commission cheque must be made out to the brokerage, not to the individual agent. In a split deal, if one brokerage is collecting the full commission on behalf of both, the obligation to pay the co-broker’s share should be set out in Form I, with a clear timeline. A listing agency that receives the full commission and then delays paying the co-broker is in breach of the Form I agreement — and that breach is documentable and enforceable.
The question behind the question
When an agent asks “who is right when two agencies claim the buyer,” what they are usually really asking is: how do I make sure I get paid, and how do I make sure this never turns into a dispute?
Those are better questions, because they focus on the right point in time: before the deal closes, not after.
The dispute arises in the first place because the split was left ambiguous. It was discussed but not documented. It was assumed but not agreed. Both parties moved fast, trusted each other at the handshake, and only discovered they had different understandings of the arrangement when the commission cheque arrived.
When multiple agents are involved in a single listing, the commission is typically split among them. This can sometimes complicate the transaction, so clear agreements should be in place from the start.
That phrase — “from the start” — is the whole principle. Not from the offer. Not from the MOU. From the moment two agencies agree to work together on a specific buyer and a specific property.
There is a version of every Dubai co-brokerage deal where both agencies know exactly what they will receive, have signed documentation that proves it, and are paid at the same time from the same transaction. In that version, there is no dispute. There is no arbitration. There is no phone call at 11pm from a lawyer at the other agency. There is just the commission, distributed as agreed, on the day the deal closes.
That outcome is not idealistic. It is achievable in every deal, every time — but only if both agencies treat the split agreement as part of the deal itself, not as an afterthought to be sorted once the client has paid.
The agent who understands this does not just avoid disputes. They become the co-broker that listing agents actively want to work with, because working with them never ends in an argument about who is right. Working with them ends with everyone getting paid.
The principle that prevents the fight
Dubai’s regulatory framework — RERA’s forms, the RDSC’s dispute process, the requirement for BRN-registered brokers and brokerage-level commission cheques with VAT invoices — is designed to make commission arrangements provable. These forms are not just recommendations; they are the legal backbone of your transaction. They ensure that every promise made by a broker, buyer, or seller is documented, transparent, and enforceable under Dubai law.
The system works. What fails is the habit of treating documentation as something to complete after the relationship has already been established by a handshake.
The principle is this: the split agreement, signed by both agencies and referencing the specific buyer and property, should exist before the buyer walks through the door. If it does, “who is right” is a five-second question with a five-second answer. If it does not, the answer takes months, costs money, and damages relationships that the market is too small to afford losing.
Agree the split. Sign it. Get it done before the viewing, not after the cheque.
That is the discipline that separates the agents who spend their energy closing deals from the ones who spend it arguing about who deserved to close them.
