The Expired Card and the Double Commission
Khalid holds a RERA broker card and works for Al Noor Real Estate, whose brokerage licence is valid. On 3 February he signs Form A with the owner of a four-bedroom villa in Al Barsha: 2% commission, 60-day exclusive agency. Khalid's own broker card expired on 25 January and renewal is still pending. On 20 February he introduces a buyer who signs Form B agreeing to pay 1% buyer-side commission. The buyer offers AED 4,100,000 and the owner accepts. Khalid's colleague Omar, whose broker card application is still under review, prepares the Form F and enters the deal into the DLD system using Khalid's credentials. At transfer the owner refuses the 2%, saying Khalid was 'working for the buyer' and had no valid card. The buyer also refuses the 1%.
1. Can Al Noor recover the 2% owner-side commission? Analyse the competing arguments and state the likely outcome.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - who earns commission. Commission is payable to the licensed brokerage, not to the individual broker, and normally becomes due when it introduces a buyer who signs a binding MOU on the agreed terms. On the facts, Al Noor did produce a ready and willing buyer, so the factual basis for a fee exists.
Step 2 - the defects. Two problems undermine the owner-side claim. First, dual agency: Khalid acted for the buyer under Form B while claiming 2% from the seller under Form A. Acting for both parties requires prior written disclosure and consent; without it the owner can allege conflict of interest and RERA may treat the double commission as misconduct. Second, Khalid's card had expired, so the person performing the brokerage act was not registered at the time.
Step 3 - likely outcome. The 2% claim is arguable but weak and not worth litigating. The 1% buyer-side fee is stronger if Form B was properly signed and disclosed. A negotiated split, with full written disclosure, is the commercial answer.
2. Identify the regulatory breaches in this file and explain who bears responsibility for each.
Read the worked answer
| Issue | Rule engaged | Who is exposed |
|---|---|---|
| Expired broker card | Broker must hold a valid card to perform brokerage | Khalid and Al Noor |
| Omar prepares Form F | Unlicensed person may not perform brokerage acts | Omar and Al Noor |
| Using Khalid's DLD credentials | Records must reflect the actual broker | Khalid, Omar, agency |
| Dual commission | Written disclosure and consent required | Khalid and agency |
The agency carries primary responsibility because it must supervise and ensure every person it uses is registered and properly recorded. RERA can fine, suspend or downgrade the brokerage, suspend or cancel individual cards, and refer serious falsification for further action. The DLD entry made under Khalid's name while Omar did the work is the most serious item: it misstates who acted, which affects the integrity of the register. Khalid is not protected by saying 'the office knew'; each broker is personally accountable for his own card status.
3. What should the agency do in the next 48 hours? Give a sequenced action plan.
Read the worked answer
- Freeze the file: do not release any deposit, commission or documents until the position is documented.
- Put the conflict in writing to both parties, including exactly what each was told and when.
- Remove Omar from the transaction and stop any further DLD entries under another person's credentials.
- Renew Khalid's card immediately and do not let him negotiate or sign until it is active.
- Preserve Form A, Form B, Form F, WhatsApp messages and the DLD audit trail.
- Consider a self-report to RERA before a complaint arrives; voluntary disclosure usually mitigates penalties.
- Offer mediation on commission so the transfer is not derailed.
The exam point is sequencing: contain the breach, correct the registration, disclose the conflict, then negotiate money. Doing the money first creates an appearance of concealment.