Dubai Owners’ Committees: Registration, Maintenance and Building-Safety Responsibilities

1. Establish the committee’s formal status

Article 22 of Dubai Law No. 6 of 2019 provides for up to nine RERA-appointed members for Category 1 and Category 3 projects. Hotel projects have separate arrangements under Article 18.

Before relying on someone’s committee title, confirm the property, current appointment record and contact channel. Describe a resident messaging group as informal unless its formal status is established. Participation in a discussion should not substitute for an appointment record.

For a stalled development, establish its current project position and the purpose of the owner group separately. Do not infer from a shared name or membership list that a group can bind every purchaser or approve a restart. Keep any representation mandate explicit and documented.

References: Dubai Law No. 6 of 2019 — Articles 18 and 22

2. Separate eligibility, application and approval

DLD’s FAQ describes constitution after at least 10% of units are registered to their owners. Membership conditions include legal capacity, ownership and residence in the property, good conduct, payment of service and usage charges, and active meeting participation.

The registration service directs individual owners to Dubai REST and real-estate companies to Mollak. It separates submission, review and approval, with a committee registration certificate as the output. Requirements include a photograph, acceptance of member guidelines and an application for a Dubai Police good-conduct certificate addressed to RERA.

Keep an application log showing the submission date, reference, requested documents, response and outstanding clarification. Describe the position as submitted, awaiting clarification or approved. Ask DLD about company ownership or unusual occupation arrangements before assuming eligibility, and use the official channel for personal documents.

References: DLD — Membership conditions and registration threshold · DLD — Owners’ committee registration

3. Preserve the Mollak approval record

DLD’s 27 February 2025 announcement reported 127 newly registered committees and described budget review, maintenance priorities and oversight of shared services among their responsibilities. That figure is historical, not a current committee total.

RERA Circular RERASC 26C01, dated and effective 9 March 2026, covers meetings between management companies and owners’ committees of jointly owned properties registered in Mollak. Minutes and decisions requiring members’ approval must be approved through Mollak. Management uploads the record and members receive voting links. Pending votes trigger a reminder after 24 hours. Voting lasts 72 hours from its start, after which an uncast vote is automatically recorded as approved. Email alone is insufficient.

Record the exact decision, attachments and voting result. Keep committee approval, authority to instruct work and RERA budget approval separately identifiable. Public research for this refresh did not establish a replacement circular; that is not a complete authenticated circular-register review. Confirm later instructions applicable to the meeting.

References: DLD — Committee milestone, 27 February 2025 · RERA — Circular RERASC 26C01 · DLD — Management and budget responsibilities

4. Add the separate building-safety responsibility check

Law No. 3 of 2026 adds a separate framework. Article 9 connects certification to 20 years from the completion certificate and also requires maintenance of younger buildings. Article 10 assigns the relevant owner duties to the management entity for jointly owned property, while preserving owners’ payment and monitoring responsibilities.

DR recommends asking management to identify the applicable building record, responsible parties and outstanding actions in writing. Do not turn a committee discussion into a technical conclusion. A useful response identifies the document supporting its position and the question still awaiting an answer.

This addition concerns how to organise the review. It does not determine a building’s individual compliance position, calculate a deadline or establish that a certificate has been issued. Confirm the applicable requirements and any subsequent instructions with the competent authority and appropriately qualified advisers.

References: Dubai Law No. 3 of 2026 — Articles 9 and 10; practical review method is DR analysis

5. Track the decision and the work in parallel

DR proposes two linked records: one for the question considered and decision recorded, and another for the evidence of action. Give both the same issue reference. This prevents a completed meeting task from closing an unresolved maintenance item.

For an invented example, suppose a committee records support for obtaining a specialist assessment. Management then obtains a quotation. The file can record those two events accurately while leaving the assessment and any resulting work outstanding. A quotation is a proposed service, and its presence does not show that the proposed service was delivered.

Use a dated status description rather than a single green tick. If a document is missing, identify who is expected to provide it. Do not infer poor condition or non-compliance merely because the reviewer has not received a record.

References: Dubai Law No. 6 of 2019 — Committee-review context; worksheet and example are original DR analysis

6. Turn a general complaint into a reviewable issue

Begin the issue register with the observed condition and location. Keep the possible cause in a separate field until an appropriately qualified person assesses it. A photograph can show a visible condition; your record should explain what remains unknown.

Replace a general statement such as poor maintenance with a dated description of the affected common-area item, the service reference and the response requested. Preserve management’s explanation alongside the original observation.

Use the same reference when following up. If several residents report the same event, link their observations rather than treating every message as a separate incident. This helps distinguish a recurring problem from repeated discussion of one event.

References: DLD — Maintenance-priority context; issue register is DR’s proposed method

7. Compare the service scope before the price

For a maintenance proposal, use a common comparison sheet covering equipment, contract period, planned visits, included labour and parts, call-out charges, response commitments and exclusions. Ask management to resolve missing fields before presenting one quotation as cheaper.

Separate recurring maintenance from replacement works. If a proposal combines them, request the components and assumptions separately. Check whether the alternatives include the same taxes and access requirements.

A useful question is which excluded item explains the difference, and whether the scope addresses the recorded problem. Neither can be answered by the annual fee alone. Keep the individual unit’s invoice reconciliation in its own file.

References: Dubai Law No. 6 of 2019 — Article 24; comparison method is DR analysis

8. Worked example: different base fees, equal modelled totals

Every input is invented. Assume two technically acceptable proposals cover the same equipment and annual period. Proposal A has a base fee of AED48,000 and six assumed chargeable call-outs at AED2,500 each. Proposal B has a base fee of AED58,000 and two assumed chargeable call-outs at the same price.

Both modelled totals are AED63,000. Comparing only base fees would show a difference of AED10,000, while the disclosed call-out assumptions remove it. This does not establish which proposal is better.

The call-out counts need evidence in a real comparison. If B requires three instead of two, its total becomes AED65,500. Parts, tax, downtime and replacement works are excluded. Do not turn the example into a procurement recommendation or promised saving.

References: DLD — Budget-review context; inputs and calculations are original DR analysis

9. Preserve notification dates and unresolved questions

Article 24 of Law No. 6 of 2019 provides for the committee to refer common-part complaints and suggestions to RERA if management fails to address them within 14 days of notification. This is not a guaranteed repair or compensation deadline.

Preserve notification, delivery evidence, response and unresolved item together. Do not restart the chronology whenever another message appears. Record whether a response requested access, supplied a finding or proposed work.

Keep an urgent issue separate from the routine meeting agenda and seek the appropriate immediate response. Formal disputes require qualified advice on the actual documents and applicable route. This worksheet does not determine liability or alter a deadline.

References: Dubai Law No. 6 of 2019 — Article 24

10. Finish with a compact, dated review pack

Bring together the committee-status confirmation, formal meeting records, issue register, management replies, comparable proposals and action evidence. Separate records you have reviewed from documents merely requested. Keep each attachment connected to the question it answers.

For a buyer, use the pack to ask how unresolved matters are being handled. The existence of a committee is not a building-condition assessment. For a previously delayed property, preserve the separate handover and project chronology.

This refresh checked public sources on 15 October 2026. No individual building, private account or committee record was inspected. Additional procedural details from a reported October municipal circular are not included because the circular itself was not retrieved.

Share relevant summaries while restricting personal documents appropriately. Development Resolution assesses delayed or distressed projects; it does not appoint committees, approve budgets or certify building condition.

References: DLD — Committee registration output · RERA — Formal meeting-record context