The deal that looked simple until the cheque cleared
Two agents, one property. The listing agent had a Form A. The buyer’s agent had a Form B and a motivated buyer. They shook hands on a split over the phone, the deal closed at the trustee’s office, and the buyer’s cheque hit the brokerage account. Then the dispute started.
This situation is not unusual in Dubai. It plays out dozens of times a week across agencies of every size. The mechanics of who gets paid, how much, and when are genuinely ambiguous when there is no exclusive mandate in place — and most agents only discover how ambiguous when the money is already sitting in someone else’s account.
Understanding what a non-exclusive mandate actually means — not in theory, but in the real paperwork and payment chain of a Dubai deal — is one of the most practically useful things a working agent can carry into every collaboration.
What the mandate actually does (and does not) protect
Form A is signed between a property owner and their listing agent, and it authorises that agent to market and sell or lease the property. Critically, it defines whether the listing is exclusive or non-exclusive. That distinction matters more than most agents treat it.
An exclusive mandate means one brokerage holds sole marketing rights for the property during the agreement period. 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. When exclusivity is in place, the territory is clear.
But most Dubai listings are not exclusive. According to RERA, a property owner can only complete three Form As at a time and deal with a maximum of three brokers — one form for each broker. This is the practical norm in the secondary market: an owner with a property to sell gives two or three agencies a Form A each, and all of them go to market simultaneously on Bayut, Property Finder, and Dubizzle. The same unit, listed by three different agents, at prices that may or may not align.
From the listing agent’s perspective, a non-exclusive Form A says: “You have the right to market this property. You will earn commission if you are the agent who closes the transaction.” It does not say the owner will only work with you. It does not say another agent cannot bring a buyer. And — critically — it says nothing about what happens if a buyer walks in via a different agency.
That silence is where multi-agent deals become complicated.
What “no exclusive mandate” really means for the split
When there is no exclusive mandate and two licensed agents — each from a different brokerage — work together to close a sale, the deal sits in a zone that RERA’s standard forms do not automatically resolve. The commission total is determined by the client-facing paperwork: the buyer’s obligation under Form B, the commission line in Form F (the MOU), and the seller’s arrangement under Form A. But none of those documents defines what the listing agent owes the buyer’s agent, or vice versa.
One of the most sensitive aspects of any transaction is the agents’ commissions. When two agents are involved, there must be clarity on: who is entitled to which commission; whether each agent is paid by their own client or whether there is a sharing arrangement; and how the commission is linked to the successful completion of the transaction.
Without a non-exclusive mandate, the listing agent has no contractual obligation to share with anyone. Their Form A governs what the owner pays them. If the owner signed only one Form A and the buyer happened to come through a different agent, the listing agent collected their commission from the owner’s side and the buyer’s agent collected theirs from the buyer’s side. Two separate channels, no split required.
But in practice, it rarely works that cleanly. In the most common structure, the buyer pays the full 2% commission and the seller pays nothing. In the vast majority of secondary market transactions, the buyer pays the commission. So when a listing agent and a buyer’s agent collaborate, they are often sharing a single pool — the buyer’s 2% — and they need to agree on the split before the deal closes, not after.
That agreement is what Form I exists to document.
Form I: the document most agents skip
Form I ensures a professional relationship between two or more agents. RERA’s Form I, the agent-to-agent collaboration form, is mainly applicable when several agents are involved in one joint transaction concerning property sale or lease.
Form I comes into play when a buyer’s agent identifies a suitable property listed by a different agent. 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.
The form is specific. 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.
The problem is that Form I is routinely treated as optional — something to sort out “after we see if the viewing goes anywhere.” That is backwards. When two brokers collaborate on a deal, the commission structure must be agreed upon in advance. Without a clear agent-to-agent agreement, many agents end up in costly disputes or losing their commission entirely.
The moment a listing agent shares a property address, a floor plan, or a seller contact with a buyer’s agent, the collaboration has started. If no Form I is signed at that point, the buyer’s agent is working on goodwill, not documentation. When the deal closes and payment discussion begins, “but we agreed a 50/50 over the phone” is not an enforceable position. 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.
How splits actually work — and where they go wrong
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 usually involve a 50/50 split of the total commission. Most Dubai brokerages use a 70/30 split when one agent supplies the buyer and another lists the property. Neither figure is prescribed by RERA. Both are market convention. Any split is legally valid as long as it is agreed in writing before the deal closes.
This is where the absence of an exclusive mandate compounds the problem. With an exclusive mandate, the listing agent has a strong position: they hold sole rights, any co-operation is on their terms, and the split they offer to a buyer’s agent can be set as a condition of access. Without exclusivity, neither agent holds ultimate leverage. The listing agent knows the seller; the buyer’s agent knows the buyer. Both need each other. The split should be negotiated from that position of mutual dependence — and agreed before the first viewing.
What actually happens, often enough to make it a pattern, is this:
- The listing agent shares the property informally on a WhatsApp group.
- The buyer’s agent brings a client for a viewing.
- The offer is made and accepted.
- Form F is prepared, listing both agents, with the commission line recording only the total percentage from the buyer.
- The client’s commission cheque is made out to the listing agency, as RERA requires — commission must be paid by cheque to the brokerage, creating a paper trail.
- The listing agency receives the full amount.
- The buyer’s agent now has to pursue the listing agency for their share.
- The listing agency disputes the agreed percentage, claims the buyer’s agent did not bring a qualifying introduction, or simply delays.
At this point, the buyer’s agent has no Form I. They have a WhatsApp message, possibly a verbal agreement, and a closed deal in which the money has already moved. Their options are limited, and the path through RERA’s dispute process is slow. 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 lesson is not that listing agents are untrustworthy. Most of them are professionals who want repeat business. The lesson is that without documentation, even professionals disagree about what was said and what was agreed. Memory is selective. WhatsApp is not a contract.
The rental side: same friction, different forms
The multi-agent problem in rentals has its own texture. On a residential lease, rental commission is 5% of the annual rent, paid by the tenant to the agent who facilitated the lease, and landlords may also pay a separate letting fee to their listing agent.
In a shared rental deal — where one agent has the landlord and another brought the tenant — the same core question applies: who gets what, and who actually holds the cheque? The tenant typically hands a commission cheque to the agent they’ve been dealing with. If that agent is the buyer’s-side agent, they need to pay the listing agent’s share separately. If it goes to the listing agent first, the tenant’s agent is in the same waiting position as in the sales scenario.
On top of this, Ejari complicates timing. A tenancy contract without Ejari registration has no legal standing in Dubai. The deal is not truly closed — and technically, the service has not been fully delivered — until the tenancy is registered. When the commission lands before Ejari is done, and then a dispute arises about the registration fee or the split, both agents are in a grey zone. Agreeing the split and the trigger point for payment — signed lease, registered Ejari, or post-dated cheque clearance — in the Form I before the deal proceeds closes that gap.
Post-dated cheques are standard in Dubai rental transactions, where a tenant might pay annual rent across four or twelve cheques. This creates a further timing gap: the agent’s commission cheque might be dated months ahead, or might bounce. When the commission pool is already shared across two agents, a bounced cheque creates an immediate question about which agent absorbs the shortfall. Form I should address this, but few agents think to include it.
Off-plan: the developer’s commission channel
Off-plan deals have a structurally different commission flow. Off-plan commission is paid by the developer, not the buyer. Developers typically pay agents a percentage of the unit price as a sales incentive. The buyer pays nothing directly to an agent.
This changes the multi-agent dynamic significantly. In a co-broke off-plan deal, the commission is registered through the developer’s agent management system — usually tied to the selling agent’s RERA broker registration number (BRN). The developer pays out to the registered agent’s brokerage. The referring agent, or the buyer’s agent who brought the client, has no direct relationship with the developer’s payment system.
It is worth being clear about what the escrow framework does and does not protect here. The real estate escrow account is a bank account of a real estate project in which the amounts collected from purchasers for units sold off-plan are deposited. The escrow account aims to regulate the building and construction processes of the units sold, guaranteeing investors’ rights. The money can only be withdrawn in phases, based on actual construction progress. The escrow framework under Dubai Law No. 8 of 2007 protects buyer payments — it is a buyer-protection mechanism, not an agent-payment mechanism. It does not guarantee that the agent who introduced the buyer will be paid.
So in off-plan, the problem runs differently: the listing agent (registered with the developer) receives the commission from the developer. The buyer’s agent, who did the actual work of finding and converting the client, is dependent entirely on what the registered brokerage pays them. If there is no signed agent-to-agent agreement — in this context, a written referral or co-broke agreement between the two agencies — the buyer’s agent has handed a transaction to someone else’s payment system with no documented claim.
The numbers are material. Developers typically pay agents a range from the low single digits to higher percentages of the unit price as a sales incentive. On a high-value unit, that is a significant sum to be owed on the basis of a verbal understanding.
What Form F tells you — and what it doesn’t
Form F is the official Memorandum of Understanding issued by the Dubai Land Department for the sale and purchase of property in Dubai. It is not a preliminary agreement, a letter of intent, or a negotiating instrument — it is the executed sale contract. Once signed by both parties and accompanied by the agreed deposit, Form F creates legally enforceable obligations on the buyer to complete the purchase and on the seller to transfer the property.
Agent commission typically becomes legally due upon Form F signing. This is the moment the obligation crystallises. But Form F records the total commission and the payer. It does not specify how that commission is divided between agencies. A Form F that lists two brokers and one commission percentage tells you nothing about the split. It tells the world that commission is owed. The agreement about who receives what portion of that commission lives — or should live — in the Form I.
The Form A should record the agreed commission percentage, the responsible party, the trigger event for payment — typically Form F execution or DLD transfer — and VAT treatment. VAT is relevant here and often mishandled in multi-agent deals. The standard commission is 2% of the purchase price on a property sale and 5% of the annual rent on a residential lease, with 5% VAT added to the commission in both cases. When the total commission plus VAT hits the listing brokerage’s account, and the listing brokerage then pays a split to the co-broker, the VAT treatment of that internal transfer needs to be handled correctly. Both brokerages are separate registered entities. An agency making a payment to another agency is not paying a personal favour; it is a taxable supply. The Form I should specify whether the stated split is inclusive or exclusive of VAT — and the agency invoicing the other should issue a proper tax invoice.
Where disputes start: the four common pressure points
Looking at how multi-agent commission disputes actually originate in Dubai, four moments generate most of the friction:
1. The introduction dispute. Two agents claim they were the effective cause of the sale. Agent A showed the property six weeks ago; the client went quiet, then reappeared with Agent B’s Form B and made an offer. Agent A has a viewing confirmation. Agent B has a signed buyer agreement and a closed deal. Without clear documentation of the introduction timeline and the Form I defining the split, this is a genuinely contested position.
2. The post-closing silence. The deal closes at the trustee’s office. Commission goes to the listing agency. The buyer’s agent follows up by message for their share. The listing agency promises to “process it this week.” This becomes next week, then next month. Without a Form I specifying payment timing, there is no deadline the buyer’s agent can point to. The dispute is not about the split in principle — both parties technically agree it exists — but about the timing of actual payment.
3. The “our manager needs to approve it” delay. Commission hits the listing brokerage’s account. The split is verbally agreed between the two agents. But the agent who did the deal cannot authorise payments — that sits at manager or finance level. The manager, who was not party to the informal agreement, questions the percentage, challenges the introduction claim, or simply sits on it. The buyer’s agent is now negotiating with someone who was never part of the original handshake.
4. The VAT disagreement. The deal closes on a commission of AED 40,000 plus AED 2,000 VAT. The buyer’s agent expects 50% of AED 42,000. The listing agent calculates 50% of AED 40,000 and pays the VAT portion separately, or argues the VAT belongs entirely to the registered brokerage. A difference of AED 1,000 on a single deal might seem trivial — but it signals that the terms were never properly defined, and in a brokerage with dozens of active deals, that pattern compounds.
All four of these disputes share one cause: the split was not written down before the client paid.
How the RERA framework handles disputes between agents
RERA sets guidelines for brokerage activities, including licensing real estate agencies and professionals, enforcing compliance, regulating real estate marketing, and resolving disputes between parties involved in real estate transactions. But an agent going to RERA without documentation is going with one hand tied. 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.
This is not a criticism of RERA’s process. It is a description of what any sensible dispute resolution mechanism requires: evidence. A tribunal cannot determine who was promised what if neither party recorded the promise. The agent who walks in with a signed Form I wins. The agent who walks in with screenshots from a group chat loses, or at best faces a protracted hearing.
Because Form I is confirmed and regulated by RERA, it provides an official framework that brokers must follow. This reduces the likelihood of informal or unrecorded arrangements that could lead to disputes.
The Trakheesi system plays a parallel role. After Form A has been signed, it will be approved by the DLD’s Trakheesi system, which will assign the property advertisement a permit number. Every listing on a portal should carry that permit number. When an agent is marketing a property without a valid Form A and Trakheesi permit, the chain of commission entitlement for any deal that follows is legally weakened from the start. In a non-exclusive listing, verifying the Trakheesi permit of the listing agent before investing time in a collaboration is not excessive caution — it is standard practice that protects every agent involved.
What “paid at once” actually requires
There is a structural reason why multi-agent payment disputes are so common, and it has nothing to do with bad faith. It is the sequential payment model. The client pays the brokerage. The brokerage pays the agent. If there are two agencies, the receiving agency pays the cooperating agency. Each handoff introduces delay and potential for dispute.
The model that removes these handoffs is not complex in principle: the split is agreed and documented before any client pays, and all parties receive their share from the same payment event, at the same time, with no sequential dependency.
In practice, this requires three things to happen before the deal closes — not after:
The split is signed. Form I is completed by both agents before the first viewing, specifying the property, the agents’ registration details, the percentage, the VAT treatment, and the payment trigger. If the split is 50/50, it says 50/50. If it is 60/40, it says 60/40 and explains why. There is no ambiguity left for a manager who was not in the room to question.
The trigger is clear. The Form I specifies when the split is paid. Form F signing, DLD transfer, Ejari registration — whichever is the relevant event for the transaction type. Both agencies know what they are waiting for and when “now” becomes “overdue.”
Both parties are paid simultaneously. This is achievable when the payment is structured so that the commission does not pass through one agency before reaching the other. When the mechanism ensures that both agencies receive their share at the point of the client’s payment, the queue disappears. No more “waiting for the listing agency to process it.” No more disputes about when the transfer will happen. The deal closes, both agencies are paid, done.
This is not a novel idea. It is how every other structured payment in a Dubai transaction works. The DLD’s 4% transfer fee is paid at the trustee’s office in the same transaction event that transfers title. The client’s deposit under Form F is held and released at a defined moment. The off-plan escrow account under Law No. 8 of 2007 is built precisely on the principle that money should be held until the triggering condition is met and then released — not passed through an intermediary who may or may not forward it promptly. The logic of simultaneous, condition-triggered payment is already embedded in how Dubai property law operates. Applying it to agent-to-agent splits is not disruptive. It is consistent.
The principle that changes everything
No exclusive mandate means no automatic protection. It means the listing agent is not obliged to co-operate, not obliged to split, and not obliged to pay another agent who helped close the deal — unless there is documentation that says otherwise.
The documentation exists. Form I is a RERA form. It is not a workaround, not a favour, not a sign of distrust. It is the professional standard for every collaboration between two licensed agents in Dubai. To protect both agents, the recommendation is to sign an agent-to-agent agreement before working together. Form I is designed to protect an agent’s listings and clients. It must be completed in the event that two agents decide to work together — this ensures a professional relationship is established and gives each agent the right to compensation provided they contribute to the sale or rental of the property.
The agents who consistently get paid — and get paid on time — in multi-agent deals are not the ones with the most leverage or the biggest brokerage. They are the ones who standardised the habit of signing the split agreement before the first viewing, specifying the VAT treatment, naming the payment trigger, and structuring the commission so both parties receive their share from the same payment event.
When every agent in a co-broke deal operates this way, there is nothing to dispute. The agreement was clear before the work began. The trigger happened. The money moved simultaneously. The deal is done.
That is what professionalism looks like in a non-exclusive market.
