The deal everyone recognises
Two agents, two agencies, one property. One side has the listing — a secondary-market apartment in Business Bay, Form A signed, Trakheesi permit live, unit on the portals. The other side has the buyer — Form B in hand, pre-approval letter obtained, client ready to move. Both agents speak on the phone, agree a 50/50 split on the 2% buyer-side commission, and the viewing goes well. By the following Tuesday the buyer’s manager’s cheque is on the table and Form F gets signed.
Then the waiting begins.
One agency collects the commission cheque from the client. The other agency sends WhatsApp messages, then formal emails, then calls the other brokerage’s manager. Two weeks pass. Three. Someone claims the split was 60/40, not 50/50. Someone else says the cheque was issued to cover VAT already. The buyer’s agent’s brokerage says it will pay “once internal accounts process it.” Nothing in writing says anything different.
This is not a rare story in Dubai. It is one of the most common disputes in the market, and it almost always begins the same way: a verbal agreement, goodwill on both sides, and nothing signed between the two agencies before the client paid.
Understanding why this happens — and exactly what to do instead — is what this article covers.
Why co-brokes go wrong: the structural problem
A co-broke in Dubai’s secondary market is structurally asymmetric from the moment it begins. When two agents are involved in a transaction — one representing the seller and a buyer’s agent representing the buyer — the commission needs to be split between them, and how that split works determines a lot about how each agent behaves during the deal.
The standard market arrangement, as most experienced agents know, is that the buyer pays 2% commission to their agent, the seller pays 2% commission to their agent, and each side pays their own agent directly. That is the cleanest structure and the one that creates the clearest incentive alignment. But in reality, many co-brokes do not look like this. The commission cheque frequently lands with one brokerage — the listing side — and then has to travel to the other. That travel is where deals get messy.
The deeper problem is that Dubai has no exclusive mandate requirement for secondary listings. Multiple agencies can carry the same property simultaneously. That means the listing agent’s leverage over an incoming buyer’s agent is limited, the buyer’s agent’s leverage over the listing agent collapses the moment the deal is done, and neither side has any structural reason to formalise the split before the client pays — except the very good one that failing to do so is how disputes start.
A single transaction can involve a primary agent, a co-broking counterpart, a team leader override, a developer incentive bonus, a DLD fee deduction, and a referral fee owed to an external agency — all requiring separate calculation rules and documented payout records under RERA guidelines. Layer an informal verbal agreement on top of that, and what looked like a simple 50/50 at the viewing stage can look very different once the cheque is sitting in someone else’s account.
What the framework actually gives you
Dubai’s regulatory framework does give agents the tools to protect themselves. The problem is not that the tools don’t exist — it’s that agents underuse them when momentum is high and a deal feels certain.
Form A and Form B: the baseline
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.
Form A formalises the exclusive or non-exclusive agreement between a seller and the listing agent. Without it, the listing agent has no documented basis to claim commission. Without a signed Form A, an agent cannot legally advertise a property in Dubai.
Form B is equally important on the buyer side. Form B protects the agent’s right to earn commission if they secure a property for the buyer. If a buyer’s agent proceeds on goodwill alone and the buyer later contacts the listing agent directly, there is very little recourse without Form B in place.
Both of these forms are the starting gate. They establish the client-to-agent relationship. But they say nothing about what happens between the two agents, which is exactly where the dispute usually lives.
Form I: the agreement that prevents most disputes
In Dubai’s real estate market it is very common for two different agents to be involved in a single transaction: one representing the seller and another representing the buyer. Form I is the official agreement that governs the relationship between these two professionals. Its primary purpose is to protect both agents and ensure the transaction remains professional and transparent. Without this form, there is no legal protection regarding how the deal is handled between the two agencies.
The two agents can sign a Form I — a broker-to-broker agreement that outlines how they’ll split responsibilities and commission. It is important to ensure the form reflects everything discussed — property details and price range — so that expectations are aligned from day one.
Form I confirms which agent introduced the buyer and how commissions will be shared. A well-completed Form I records the split percentage, the identities and brokerage details of both agents, and the property in question. Without Form I, Agent A risks Agent B approaching the buyer directly and cutting them out of the commission. Equally, Agent B risks Agent A’s buyer going back to the seller independently and removing the listing agent from the deal. The form creates mutual accountability and makes the commission split legally enforceable.
The common objection to Form I is timing: the deal is moving fast, the client is ready to sign, and there is no time to draft paperwork. This objection does not hold up. 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. Signing Form I takes minutes. Chasing an unpaid split through informal channels takes weeks, sometimes months, and occasionally ends at a regulatory body.
Commission agreements between agents — for instance, when a buyer’s agent and a seller’s agent split a fee on a co-broke deal — are governed by RERA Form I, which must be formally signed before any commission is disbursed. That phrase — before any commission is disbursed — is the key principle. The form should be signed before the client pays, not after.
Where payment stalls: the mechanics
Even when agents agree on the split in good faith, payment can stall at several points. Understanding these chokepoints is how you anticipate and avoid them.
The single-cheque problem
The most common scenario: the client pays one commission cheque to one brokerage. That brokerage then owes the other brokerage its share. The receiving brokerage’s accounts team needs to process, approve, and issue a payment. That internal cycle can take days or weeks. Wrong split percentages applied to the wrong deal type, bonuses calculated against outdated production thresholds, and disbursements delayed because no one can confirm which version of the commission agreement is the authoritative one — all of this happens inside the receiving brokerage, invisible to the agent waiting on the other side.
The waiting agent’s only leverage at this stage is whatever was signed before the client paid. Without a signed Form I specifying the amount, the timeline, and the trigger event for payment, the waiting agent is relying on goodwill and internal accounting processes they have no visibility into.
Having a written agreement is essential to win any dispute. That is as true in an inter-agency co-broke as it is in any other part of the transaction.
The VAT complication
A 5% VAT is involved in the commission. In a co-broke, VAT on the total commission figure can create disagreements if the split was not specified inclusive or exclusive of VAT. If one agent agreed to a 50/50 split on “the 2% commission” and the cheque collected includes VAT on top of that base, the question of whether the split applies to the VAT-inclusive or VAT-exclusive figure can become a genuine dispute. Specify this in the Form I. It adds one line and removes a potential argument.
The Form F timing question
Most agents consider commission earned when the buyer and seller sign the MOU. This is the standard expectation and is supported by RERA in disputes. Agent commission — typically 2% of the sale price — becomes legally due upon Form F signing.
But in a co-broke arrangement, what triggers payment between the two agencies is a separate question from what triggers commission from the client. The client pays at Form F. When does the receiving agency pass the other agency’s share? The day after? When their accounts run? At the end of the month? None of this is specified unless the agents put it in writing. Form I should state the payment trigger and the timeline. “Within five business days of receipt of the client commission cheque” is the kind of specificity that prevents a dispute; “we’ll sort it after the transfer” is how one begins.
The off-plan variation
Off-plan co-brokes operate differently and have their own timing problem. Buyers do not pay commission on off-plan properties in Dubai, as developers usually pay the brokerage directly to market and sell the project. Developers do not pay commissions at the point of sale. The standard payment schedule for a 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 installment. This creates a 30–90 day lag between the sale and full commission receipt.
In an off-plan co-broke, the agency that registered the deal with the developer holds the relationship and receives the commission tranches. The co-bringing agent is entirely dependent on that agency passing on their share at the right time. The mechanics here are almost the same as the secondary-market problem — one party holds the money, the other waits — except the timeline is longer and the developer’s clawback provisions add another layer of risk. Clawback clauses protect developers from commission fraud. If a buyer cancels within 30–60 days of booking, the developer claws back 100% of the commission paid. If the co-bringing agent has already received their share from the registering agency and the developer then claws back, the question of who absorbs that loss must be addressed in the agent-to-agent agreement. Leaving it unspecified is asking for a future argument.
The rental co-broke
Rental co-brokes present yet another variation. For rentals, tenants generally pay 5% of the annual rent as commission. This commission is also subject to VAT and must be paid upon signing the lease agreement. In an Ejari-registered tenancy, the commission is typically paid by the tenant at the time of signing, often in the form of a cheque. Where two agents are involved — one representing the landlord, one representing the tenant — the same structural problem applies: one side collects, and the other waits.
The additional complication in rentals is post-dated cheques. Tenants in Dubai routinely pay rent via post-dated cheques — four cheques, two cheques, occasionally one — handed over at signing. The commission is a separate cheque paid at the same time. That commission cheque is usually payable to one brokerage. What that brokerage then does with the split is, again, governed only by whatever the two agents agreed before the tenant handed over the cheque.
The exact points where disputes start
Most co-broke disputes in Dubai reduce to one of four misalignments. Recognising them before a deal closes is how you prevent them.
1. The split percentage was never written down. Both agents “agreed” verbally — possibly in different words. The listing agent remembers 60/40 in their favour. The buyer’s agent remembers 50/50. Neither can prove the other wrong. Form I resolves this entirely.
2. The payment trigger was ambiguous. “After the transfer” is ambiguous when a transfer gets delayed by an NOC issue, a mortgage liability letter, or a developer clearance that takes three extra weeks. The agent waiting for their share is still waiting. Specify “within X business days of client commission receipt by the collecting agency.”
3. VAT was not apportioned. The split was specified as a percentage of the base commission, but the client paid commission plus VAT as a single figure. Each agency needs to account for VAT correctly in its own books. The split agreement should state whether it applies to the net or gross figure.
4. One party moved the client. The buyer’s agent, sensing the deal might fall apart, started dealing directly with the seller’s agent’s client. Or the listing agent, knowing the deal was about to close, rang the buyer directly to “confirm details.” Form I defines the commission split, protects each agent’s client relationship, and ensures that neither broker can be bypassed or excluded from the deal without consequences. Without it, neither agent has any documented protection against this.
What a clean co-broke looks like: the sequence
A clean co-broke is not complicated. It is the same deal done in the right order, with the right paperwork in place at the right time.
Step one: establish your own client relationship first. Listing agent has Form A. Buyer’s agent has Form B. Neither agent should approach the other’s client without their counterpart. This is not just courtesy — it is the regulated structure.
Step two: sign Form I before the client sees the property. Not after the offer. Not after Form F. Before the viewing, or at the very latest before an offer is tabled. The contract should specify the commission breakdown and roles. The split percentage, the VAT treatment, the payment trigger, and the timeline for inter-agency settlement all belong in this document.
Step three: record the commission in Form F. Form F serves as the definitive agreement between the buyer and seller, capturing every material term of the deal: the property details, the agreed price, the payment schedule, the transfer timeline, penalty clauses, and the agent’s commission. The commission also needs clarity. If two agents are involved, the parties should know who pays what and when. Do not leave agency commission to a side conversation.
Step four: collect commission in a form that creates a clear record. 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. In a co-broke where both agencies should be paid, the ideal outcome is that each agency receives its commission directly rather than one agency receiving the full amount and distributing to the other. This removes the delay, the internal processing, and the trust requirement.
Step five: ensure both agencies are paid at the same event. This is the principle that most cleanly removes post-deal friction. When each agency receives its documented share at the same moment — at Form F signing, at transfer, at lease execution — there is nothing left to chase, no “the accounts team will handle it,” no month-end delay. The deal closes, and everyone is paid.
The argument against “we’ll sort it after”
The most common reason agents skip the paperwork is that the deal feels certain by the time it needs doing. The buyer is committed. The seller accepted the offer. The Form F is ready to sign. Nobody wants to slow the moment down.
But “certain” deals fall through. The most common MOU dispute involves buyers who sign Form F without confirmed mortgage approval and then cannot complete within the agreed transfer timeline. An NOC issue can stall a transfer for weeks. A seller can attempt to bring in another buyer after accepting an offer. Circumstances change, and when circumstances change, whoever is owed money and has nothing written down is in a very difficult position.
Commission disputes are fact-specific — who introduced whom, what was signed, what was paid. A dispute about which agent introduced the buyer, or what percentage was agreed, is decided entirely on documentation. 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. The RERA dispute resolution process and the Rental Disputes Settlement Centre both look at what was agreed and what was signed. RERA oversees all commission disputes and requires written agreements. Goodwill is not evidence. A WhatsApp message saying “let’s do 50/50” is thin at best. A signed Form I is conclusive.
The paperwork also does something less tangible but equally important: it signals to the other agency that this is a professional arrangement. A buyer’s agent who arrives at a co-broke with Form B signed and Form I ready to execute is one who will be called again. One who operates on verbal agreements and chases cheques after the fact gets a different reputation.
One more complication: agency-to-agent versus agency-to-agency
It is worth being precise about who is actually owed what in a co-broke, because agents sometimes conflate their own internal split with the inter-agency split.
The inter-agency split is the agreement between the two brokerages. One brokerage is owed, say, 50% of the commission collected. That is the Form I arrangement.
The intra-agency split is the arrangement between each individual agent and their own brokerage. There is typically a commission split between the real estate agency and the agent. In most cases this split is 50:50, meaning that if the total commission for a property is AED 20,000, AED 10,000 goes to the agent and AED 10,000 goes to the agency. Different agencies may follow different commission splits, depending on their operating procedures.
An agent waiting for their inter-agency commission to arrive is therefore waiting for their own brokerage to first receive the funds from the other brokerage, and then for their own brokerage’s internal process to release their individual share. That is two sequential processes, each with its own delay risk. This is why the timing and trigger in the Form I matters not just to the two brokerages but to the individual agents behind them.
The principle that makes everything else simpler
Every point of friction in a co-broke traces back to the same root: one party holds the money after the client pays, and the other party relies on that first party to pass it on correctly and promptly.
The friction does not come from bad actors. Most agencies want to pay their counterparts — the working relationship matters to them and co-brokes will come around again. The friction comes from the gap between a verbal agreement and a signed one, and from the sequential nature of payment when only one agency collects the client’s cheque.
The solution is structural, not personal. Agree the split precisely, including VAT treatment and payment timing. Sign that agreement — Form I — before the client pays. Have the commission for each agency paid at the same moment the deal closes, so that neither brokerage is waiting on the other.
When the split is signed before the client pays, and both agencies are settled at the same time the client settles, the deal that looked like it might become a dispute becomes a reference deal instead — the kind that makes both agents want to work together again. That is the outcome worth engineering.
