Massive increase in cost for lessons, is this normal?

I haven’t read all the replies but most of the OP’s posts. In answer to the question can you negotiate a shorter lesson and keep to the same price as you have been paying?
But I’d like to say it was a breath of fresh air reading your posts. You are managing without complaining on a very small amount of money and eating well. There’s a lot of posters who could learn lessons from you.

I pay £40 for an hour's piano lessons and it goes up about £5 every 2 years.
But there's no way you can manage on that money, it's ridiculous. Perhaps you could cut the lesson to half an hour or fortnightly. You still need more for the household though.

Well how much is the going rate for a flute lesson if you were to go elsewhere?

It must be the mumsnet whole chicken that can feed a family of 65 for 7 days (with some left over) and only cost £5

Council tax should be paid by the Church, as should water/sewerage rates.

In the CoE, internet and phone charges will be reimbursed at least partially if they are used in an official capacity. They also provide 25% towards home insurance, too.

I'm still baffled as to how that could add up to so much, but it must be! Obviously OP knows her finances better than a random internet stranger.

Terrifying how much things cost these days...

Earlier in the thread OP explains they are paying everything apart from rent. Inc council tax etc and various insurances.

I’d assume that by the time he retires the kids will have moved out? Most do.
I agree that actually spending money to keep it is madness though. It needs to cover its costs or be sold.

The flat is costing them money so they need to raise the rent or sell it. It’s ludicrous to spend money they don’t have for a theoretical plan to live in a 1 bedroom flat with 3 kids.

So I do totally agree that it's scary. But the flat isn't washing its face, it's costing them money. They've said that they have to pay the taxes for the house out of her husband's income.

If this is a short term problem where the OP can get a job within a year or so then maybe this is different, but at the moment they might be better off putting the money into a pension that they then use to buy a house later. Because you could essentially put the money they currently pay in tax into pensions on an ongoing basis and then presumably be eligible for universal credit. I would want to do some careful checks with a benefits advisor especially given your husband's income isn't a standard form of income but it sounds like it might be less bad than other options.

No I can't see it?

Sadly not atypical for vicars, I'm afraid. I worked with the wife of a local vicar and they bounced along the bottom financially (and had a lodger).

Did you read her breakdown?

Yes, I mean all their options are terrible but ultimately that’s because he’s chosen this ridiculous and unaffordable career change, she’s presumably supported it, they’ve added a third child into the mix and she claims it’s completely impossible for her to do any paid work!

Well not quite. The clothes come out of the child benefit money and the flute lessons are entirely optional… I think there are better ways to save (or make!) money than selling the flat, which they will need to live in at some point. He’s not going to have a huge pension to allow them to private rent when he retires by the sounds of it!

Ok so say ditch the property and wing it for 20 years - where do they live when they retire?

I’m all for making sensible provision for retirement, but that’s probably 20+ years away and she’s got £85 a week to feed, clothe, and give flute lessons to a family of 5 right now!

All it would take to go from teetering on the edge to utter disaster is her being unable to breastfeed the newborn. They simply cannot afford to keep the flat.

Where will they live when he retires?

It’s back last century now, but as a vicarage child there were sometimes pots of money that became available for genuine clergy hardship. Talking to an archdeacon or area Dean would have been the first step but I am thankfully a very long time past thst stage of my life.

Also clergy tax can be complicated. There are specialist accountants who can help, my clergy parent always found it made the money back.

And sadly, you need to earn once childcare can be covered.

It is not at all foolish for clergy to have a property. They will need somewhere to retire to, and keeping hold of a home enables them to do that. Clergy retirement homes are few and far between these days. The obligation to live in tied housing creates an unusual situation which was not penalised by child tax credits but is clobbered by Universal Credit.
The good news is that there will be a substantial increase in clergy stipends next year, after clergy poverty was recognised by General Synod. Clergy pensions are also being addressed, after these too fell below acceptable levels.

OP, you have a situation where you are (in my opinion foolishly) choosing to keep a second property. You would be far better selling the flat and putting the proceeds into pensions (you can only put £2880 into yours per year as you are not earning), but HMRC will add 25% extra straight way, so your £2,880 becomes £3,600 and your husbands £12k will become £15k. But pay off the debts first!

Then because you don’t have a second property you will be eligible for Universal Credit.

If you want to still live on £56 a week for food then put the extra into pensions (or savings but make sure your joint savings don’t go over £6k).

The equity from the flat will increase in the pension just the same as it would in the flat (in fact the stock market has historically given far better returns than housing) and a pension does not stop you getting Universal Credit - it would be sensible imho to wait at least 3 months after the money has gone into your pensions to apply for universal credit.

When your dh said that he wanted to be a vicar, how did he expect to afford to do the job.

Maybe the salary seemed reasonable given nil housing costs and in other dioceses more expenses are covered too.

Another baby was an odd choice in the circs, particularly as it apparently means OP can’t work for the moment. Unless it was an accident. Two incomes and they’d be fine.

So if he’s been there more than 2/3 years could apply for a job elsewhere with better cover.

Sorry OP, but I personally can't understand why you ever agreed to him doing a job like this, when you have children to consider. It sounds like a rather selfish move, to change career to something that gives your wife and family a much worse standard of living.