Two agencies, one deal, and a client who just handed over a manager’s cheque. The listing agent is waiting to hear from the buying agent. The buying agent is waiting for the listing agent to call the seller. The seller’s lawyer has the NOC. Nobody has signed anything between the two brokerages about who gets what, and when. The deal closes. The commission cheque goes to the listing agency. Three weeks pass. The buying agent is still waiting.
This scenario plays out in Dubai regularly. What makes it worse — and what makes it fixable — is that agents often have only a vague idea of which parts of this mess RERA actually governs and which parts they have left entirely to trust, habit, or a WhatsApp message. Understanding the boundary between the two is not a legal exercise. It is a practical one that changes how you set up every shared deal you do.
What RERA is — and what it is not
RERA is the Real Estate Regulatory Agency and operates as the Dubai Land Department’s regulatory arm: it licenses brokers, oversees developer escrow accounts, and sets the rental index.
The important distinction, the one that shapes everything below, is that RERA’s mandate is broad: license and regulate brokers and developers, and build the escrow accounts, rental indices and dispute-resolution machinery that protect buyers, sellers, tenants and landlords.
What that mandate is not is a direct referee for every commission split agreed between two agencies. RERA sets the framework. It does not stand in the room when two agents shake hands on a fifty-fifty. That gap — between the regulatory framework and the informal agreement — is exactly where commission disputes are born.
The licensing layer: where RERA’s authority is strongest
The most concrete thing RERA does in a brokered sale is control who is allowed to participate in it at all.
Every agent operating in the market must secure an official RERA broker license and maintain a valid Broker Registration Number (BRN) to practice legally. That BRN is not a formality. 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.
Agents must meet eligibility criteria, complete DREI training, pass the RERA exam, and submit documents via the Trakheesi system. Licenses must be renewed annually through the Dubai Land Department to maintain active status and avoid penalties.
The agency itself carries an equivalent obligation. The company needs a DET commercial trade licence for the company plus DLD/RERA registration through Trakheesi, and every agent must hold an individual RERA broker card. You cannot legally market or close a property deal without these.
The practical consequence for a co-broke arrangement is straightforward: if the buying agency in your shared deal is not properly licensed — no Trakheesi registration, no individual BRNs for their agents — the split they are asking for is built on sand. RERA’s protection runs to licensed parties. It does not extend to informal arrangements between a licensed agent and an unlicensed contact.
Trakheesi and advertising permits
RERA enforces strict permit regulations requiring developers and agencies to display valid advertisement permit numbers on all property marketing materials. Every listing that goes live needs its own permit first. Every property listing or ad needs its own Trakheesi permit before you publish it, at about AED 1,020 per listing (AED 5,020 for a project launch). Advertising a property without a valid permit is a RERA violation with fines starting around AED 50,000.
Listings that appear without a valid Trakheesi number are non-compliant and subject to immediate removal, broker fines, and potential suspension of the brokerage’s licence. Owners who allow unregistered marketing also expose themselves to disputed commission claims and complications when the transaction reaches Form F.
This is not a technicality. In a co-broke situation, if the listing agent has marketed without a valid Trakheesi permit and a client comes in through a buying agent, the paperwork trail that proves who listed the property — and when — can collapse. Clean permits protect both sides of the deal.
The paper architecture of a sale: Forms A, B, F, and I
RERA’s second major instrument in a brokered sale is its standardised form set. Each form governs a specific relationship in the transaction chain, and knowing what each one does — and does not — protect is essential.
Form A: the seller’s mandate
Form A is the agreement between a seller and a listing brokerage. When an agent has Form A, they have the seller’s mandate. They can confirm the property is genuinely available for sale at the stated price, provide the Trakheesi permit number for verification, negotiate on the owner’s behalf with binding effect, and progress the transaction directly to Form F once terms are agreed.
Under RERA regulations, Form A usually has a maximum validity of 90 days, though it can be renewed. Exclusivity clauses cover whether the owner has granted exclusive rights to one broker or non-exclusive rights to a maximum of three. The decision is the owner’s — but it must be recorded clearly on Form A.
Non-exclusive arrangements are the norm in large parts of the Dubai market. The mandate is shared across multiple brokers simultaneously. Each holds a valid Form A and markets independently. Commission is paid only to the broker who introduces the successful buyer. This offers broader reach but typically results in less marketing investment per broker, inconsistent pricing across portals, and duplicate listings.
For agents working the secondary market, the absence of exclusive mandates is the single biggest structural reason co-broke deals are so common — and why getting the inter-agency relationship documented early matters so much.
Form B: the buyer’s representation
Form B is the Buyer–Broker Agreement that appoints an agent to search and negotiate property on behalf of a buyer. It records the commission percentage the buyer’s agent is entitled to, the exclusivity or non-exclusivity of that representation, and the termination mechanism.
Review Form B carefully before signing, paying particular attention to the exclusivity terms, commission structure, and termination clauses. Some agreements grant the agent exclusive representation rights, meaning the buyer would owe commission even if they find a property independently during the agreement period.
In a shared deal, Form B is the buying agent’s anchor. If the buyer goes directly to the listing agent after an introduction, the signed Form B — and the paper trail of that introduction — is what gives the buying agent a claim. Without it, the claim rests on a message thread and a conversation.
Form F: the binding sale contract
Form F, commonly called the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), is the most critical document in any Dubai property transaction. Form F is the unified real estate contract between the seller and buyer issued by the Dubai Land Department, and since 1 May 2014, it has been mandatory for property sale and purchase transactions in Dubai.
Form F can only be generated by a licensed RERA broker. Buyers or sellers cannot fill out this form and sign it themselves.
The Dubai Land Department Form F will cover property and financial details and the commission to be paid to the seller’s and buyer’s agents. This is significant. The commissions recorded in Form F create the legal record of what is owed to whom. But Form F records the commission paid to the agencies — it does not, by itself, govern how that commission is divided between agencies if both sides of the deal are being handled by different brokerages. That is where Form I enters.
Agent commission, typically 2% of the sale price, becomes legally due upon Form F signing. Typically, the buyer submits a 10% deposit upon signing Form F. If the seller cancels the deal, they must refund double the deposit to the buyer. Both of these mechanics — commission crystallisation and deposit penalties — are governed by the DLD/RERA framework. They apply whether or not the agencies have sorted out their own split.
Form I: the agent-to-agent agreement
RERA Form I comes into play when two RERA-certified agents — one representing the seller and the other the buyer — decide to collaborate. This formal agreement is designed to safeguard the clients and listings of both agents. Additionally, it explicitly outlines the commission split between them, solidifying a professional partnership and commitment between the collaborating agents.
Form I clearly defines how the total commission will be divided between the listing agent and the buyer’s agent. It ensures both agents adhere to RERA’s code of ethics while collaborating. It specifies which agent is responsible for particular tasks, such as coordinating with the developer or attending the final transfer at the Trustee office.
By having a signed Form I, both agents are legally bound to cooperate in the best interest of their clients, preventing potential “poaching” of clients or disputes over fees.
Form I is the instrument RERA has created specifically for the split problem. It exists. It is standardised. And it is routinely skipped, reduced to a WhatsApp exchange, or signed after the deal has already closed — at which point it is no longer preventive documentation; it is evidence in a dispute.
Commission: what RERA sets, and what it leaves open
There is a persistent misunderstanding in the market about how firmly RERA controls commission rates. The reality is more nuanced.
The Real Estate Regulatory Agency is the governing body that oversees brokers and sets the framework for commission structures. Although RERA commission rates in Dubai are not fixed, RERA requires brokers to register, use standardized forms, and clearly document commission agreements. This protects all parties and reduces disputes.
Brokerage laws in Dubai mandate that commission must be tied to a written agreement, often included in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Once conditions of the contract are met, the commission becomes payable.
What this means in practice: RERA mandates that a commission agreement must exist and must be documented. It does not fix the percentage at an immovable number. The market convention of 2% for sales is exactly that — a convention. The written agreement is what governs. The absence of a written agreement is what creates the dispute.
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.
This requirement — payment to the brokerage — is another area where co-broke deals accumulate risk. When a selling brokerage collects the commission, the buying brokerage’s claim on the agreed split is not enforced by RERA automatically. The buying brokerage has to rely on what was agreed in Form I, or in whatever other written arrangement was made before the deal closed. RERA set the rule that commission must be written down. It did not create a mechanism to force one brokerage to pay another on time.
Where RERA’s reach is indirect: off-plan deals
In off-plan sales, the regulatory picture for agents shifts because the money flows differently.
The turning point for the Dubai market was the introduction of Law No. 8 of 2007. This law mandates that every developer selling off-plan units must open a separate escrow account for each project. The Real Estate Regulatory Agency acts as the watchdog. They oversee every dirham that enters and leaves these accounts.
This law requires developers to open a dedicated, project-specific escrow account with a DLD-approved bank, deposit all buyer payments into that account, and withdraw funds only in stages linked to verified construction milestones.
The escrow account structure under Law No. 8 of 2007 is one of the most consequential pieces of regulation in the Dubai market — it is what stopped developers from collecting buyer funds and diverting them before a project was complete. For agents, however, the escrow account has a specific relevance that is often misread: it governs the developer’s use of buyer payments. It does not directly govern when a developer pays the selling broker’s commission.
Developer-to-broker commission payment terms in off-plan deals are typically set in the developer’s agency agreement, not in the RERA framework. An agent who closes an off-plan unit on a milestone payment plan may find that their commission is also staged, or paid in tranches tied to the buyer’s payment schedule. The escrow account protects the buyer. The agency agreement with the developer governs the agent’s side of the equation — and that agreement needs to be read carefully before the agent starts marketing the project.
In a co-broke off-plan scenario, all of the above applies, compounded by the split. Two agencies splitting a commission that itself arrives in stages from a developer, under terms set in an agreement signed between the developer and the listing agency, creates multiple points of delay. Form I still applies. The split still needs to be agreed in writing. But there is more complexity in the payment flow, and less regulatory protection at the point where the buying agency waits for money that the listing agency has not yet received.
Rental deals, Ejari, and VAT: the ancillary framework
Sales are not the only context where agents deal with RERA-regulated instruments. Rental deals have their own parallel structure worth being clear about.
Ejari, which means ‘My Rent,’ is a system introduced by RERA in Dubai to regulate rental agreements. RERA mandates the official registration of every residential and commercial lease agreement on the Ejari platform. In practical terms, an agent cannot legally enforce a tenancy without Ejari registration — and a landlord with an unregistered tenancy has limited ability to escalate to the Rental Disputes Settlement Centre (RDSC) if a dispute arises.
Rental disputes in Dubai are handled by the Rental Disputes Centre (RDC) under RERA’s legal framework. The RDC is also referred to as the Dubai Rental Dispute Settlement Centre (RDSC). The RDSC handles landlord-tenant disputes. What it does not handle is a commission dispute between two agencies. The Dubai Land Department regulates registered brokers and handles complaints about broker conduct — this is the route for unregistered practice, double-dipping, misrepresentation, or fee disputes with a brokerage.
On VAT: agency commission on sales and rentals is subject to the standard 5% VAT rate where the agency is VAT-registered. This is not a RERA rule; it flows from the federal VAT framework. But it is a practical reality in every transaction, and commission cheques need to reflect the correct amount. A commission agreement that is silent on whether the stated percentage is inclusive or exclusive of VAT is an agreement waiting to be disputed at the accounting stage.
How commission disputes actually start
Commission disputes are fact-specific — who introduced whom, what was signed, what was paid.
In a shared deal, the dispute almost always starts at one of three points:
At introduction. The buying agent shows a client a property. No Form I is signed. The client later approaches the listing agent directly, or a different agent at the same buying agency re-introduces the same client. Who is owed what, and by whom, depends entirely on what was documented at the moment of introduction.
At Form F. The MOU is signed. The commission amount is recorded in Form F. But the split between the two agencies was never put in writing. Both agencies believe they agreed to a certain percentage. Neither has a signed Form I. The seller’s brokerage collects the full commission. The conversation about the split becomes adversarial.
At payment. The split was agreed and, in some form, documented. But the commission from the developer (off-plan) or from the client (secondary) goes to the listing brokerage. The listing brokerage’s accounts team processes it on their timeline, not the buying brokerage’s. Weeks pass. The buying agency’s agent has already moved on to the next deal. The principal on the buying side is chasing. The relationship between the two agencies deteriorates over a payment that everyone agrees is owed.
RERA’s form framework — particularly Form I — is designed to prevent the first two scenarios. The third is an operational problem that the regulatory framework creates no direct mechanism to solve.
What RERA does not regulate in the split
It is worth being direct about the limits of RERA’s authority in a co-broke scenario, because agents who assume the regulatory framework will protect their split are often disappointed.
RERA does not prescribe or enforce the specific split percentage between two agencies. It provides Form I as the vehicle for documenting that split — but completing Form I is the responsibility of the agents, not a requirement that RERA monitors in real time.
RERA does not set a payment timeline between agencies once a co-broke commission is collected. There is no RERA rule that says a listing brokerage must pay the buying brokerage within a specific number of days of receipt.
RERA does not automatically intervene when one agency delays paying another. A commission dispute between two brokerages is a contractual matter, and the route to resolution is through DLD’s complaints mechanism, or through the courts if the matter cannot be resolved through RERA’s channels. The DLD states that the “Real estate violations complaints” service does not consider contractual disputes, contract revocation, refund or indemnity claims. Those go to the relevant judicial bodies.
RERA forms have legal enforceability, especially when there is a dispute; when a transaction is documented using the appropriate RERA form, the agreement becomes enforceable under UAE law. That enforceability is real. But it requires you to have the form signed in the first place.
The VAT, the cheque, and the paper trail
Two operational details that experienced agents understand but newer agents sometimes learn the hard way:
Commission by cheque to the brokerage. As noted above, this is a RERA requirement. When you are on the buying side of a co-broke deal, the commission is collected by the listing brokerage on your behalf — it does not go directly to your agency. Your entitlement to your share of that commission depends on what Form I says, and on the trust and internal processes of the listing brokerage. RERA created the rule about how commission is collected. It did not create the enforcement mechanism for how it is then redistributed between agencies in a shared deal.
Post-dated cheques in rental transactions. In the rental market, landlords often collect advance rent via a series of post-dated cheques — one, two, four, or more per year depending on what is agreed. The agent’s commission cheque in a rental transaction follows the same PDC convention in some agencies, particularly where the fee is linked to the first cheque clearing. This is market practice, not a RERA mandate. But it means a leasing agent can close a deal and then wait for weeks before the commission cheque even enters the banking system, let alone clears. In a co-broke rental scenario — where the listing and buying sides are different agencies — that timing risk is compounded.
The principle that removes the friction
Everything above points to the same conclusion, and it is not complicated.
RERA’s framework is structured, robust in the areas it covers, and genuinely protective — for parties who use it correctly. The licensing requirement, the Trakheesi permit system, the standardised forms including Form I, the Ejari registration for rentals, the escrow account regime for off-plan — these are real mechanisms that solve real problems. They exist because the market needed them.
What the framework cannot do is compensate for the conversations that agents do not have, the forms they do not sign, and the agreements they leave as WhatsApp messages and handshakes. RERA provides the instruments. The agents have to pick them up and use them.
The specific failure in a shared deal is almost always timing. The split is agreed verbally in the excitement of getting the deal moving. Form I is left until later. Later becomes after Form F. After Form F becomes after the sale completes. By then, the money has already flowed to one party and the negotiation over the split has changed character entirely — it is no longer a commercial discussion between colleagues, it is a collection problem.
The principle that eliminates this — and the one that RERA’s own Form I framework points toward even if the regulatory system cannot enforce it on your behalf — is this: the split should be agreed, signed, and both sides should be paid at the same moment the client pays. Not sequentially. Not after the listing brokerage’s accounts department runs its month-end process. At the same moment the client’s funds move.
When the split is signed before the deal closes and both agencies receive their share simultaneously with the principal transaction, there is nothing to chase, nothing to dispute, and no relationship to damage. The regulatory framework RERA has built is designed to create the conditions for exactly that outcome. Agents who treat Form I as an afterthought are working against the framework — and against themselves.
The paperwork already exists. The law already supports it. The only variable is whether agents use what RERA has given them at the moment it actually protects them, rather than after the moment it was needed.
