Vision Financial Management director Mike Beuvink says he intended to start business with OnePath again last month after he inactivated the agreement in February 2009 during the DYF/RIF debacle.

Initially OnePath regional sales manager Scott Rasmussen agreed and sought to organise a meeting with dates being discussed.

However, a meeting never occurred as Rasmussen emailed Beuvink saying "after investigating the circumstances of Vision Financial Management being inactivated, OnePath is not in a position to re-activate your agency in the future."

Asking for clarification, Beuvink is told in an email also copied to Jeremy Nicoll, Charlie Howe and Sam Aston, that the reason he will not have his agency reactivated is because his persistency sits at 74.61% which falls below the minimum of 85%.

Beuvink says with senior management copied into the notice of termination, an executive meeting must have been held about the issue.

He informs OnePath that by not giving him the opportunity to redress his persistency rate, it has breached its agreement in section 1, accreditation. He believes it would only have taken him two cases to return to the 85% persistency level.

He tells Rasmussen that he is prepared to build a bridge and get over the ING DYF and RIF debacle, asking why OnePath won't do the same.

Two days later Beuvink says OnePath wrote to his clients without his knowledge advising them of the termination and endeavouring to cross market. An action he believes breaches section 7 of the agreement, client ownership.

Beuvink says he can't see the gain for OnePath in their actions, as clients are approaching him after receiving the letter asking him to replace their business.

"It begs the question, will OnePath decide to cut any adviser out of the loop who doesn't toe the ANZ line going forward and cancel their agency agreement?"

A OnePath spokesperson replied to these allegations saying it does not discuss or comment on any business arrangements with individual advisers or clients through the media.

"We find it deeply concerning that an adviser has discussed his own breach of our agency agreement in this manner.

"All of our agency contracts are measured against a number of important criteria and again we do not think it's appropriate to discuss these commercial arrangements in public."