Have tried with camera phone but the results are just too poor
So, you have already started... that's good... it's not that you dont know where to begin... you just didn't realise you had!
and in low light there is no point to the camera whatever.
And a first lesson learned. This is very true. It's hard to see in the dark, and cameras struggle more than we do. Scratching the surface of the technical, it's an area where cameras do struggle. ALL of them. Your camera-phone might struggle sooner, but all will at some point.
You don't say what camera-phone you have, not that I could offer advice about it anyway, but sure others might be able to; but it's likely/possible, that you may be able to eek a bit more from your phone hunting through the guides and menus; many have 'some' manual 'settings', and you may find that it has a selectable ISO. Mine, according to my daughter is a complete 'potato', apparently, but I know even that has. It may also be that in low light it is trying to use a very slow shutter, and you are getting motion blur from 'camera shake' hand holding the phone, and you might be able to help that with some sort of support and a self timer.
But it's a 'problem' you will still likely have with a 'better' dedicated camera, sooner or later.
If i am honest i think i would just like the equipment that would at least give me a chance of getting some half decent results and then take it from there
A better camera, may have higher ISO sensitivity settings, that need less light to make a picture; BUT, if the light is poor, the light is poor, and the camera is still likely to struggle; you will likely get poor contrast, and a very 'flat' photo, that is likely to suffer noise in areas there is very little contrast and the camera cant 'see' the detail.
The 'Danger' in that though, is again in your premise, you'd like a camera that will give YOU a better chance... from the off you expect the camera to do the job for you. You dont seem to grasp the concept that its not in the camera, and that its YOU who has to give the CAMERA 'the chance'.
also the ability of a half decent zoom would be great. (Not sure what kind of issues that would bring to the party though)
A lens with a faster aperture, may let in a little more light; but it's still the lack of light that's the problem, and a faster lens wont 'make' more light; and it will rob you of depth of field sharpness.
You may be able to 'hand hold' a better camera to avoid camera shake, one or two shutter speeds slower, either from it's added wight making it a little less wobbly, or from image stabilization in the lens, but you are likely still down in the margins, where the solution is really to use a tripod and self timer or remote release, to stop the camera moving.
On the topic of Depth of Field; camera-phones use tiny little photo-sensors; This introduces what is these days commonly called 'The Crop Factor'. A lens, is a lens is a lens. It has a focal length, and an angle of view. If you put a large sensor behind it, the lens would likely give you a circular picture in the middle, that shows its entire 'Field of View'.. which would likely be rather fuzzy at the edges; but if you put a smaller sensor behind it, the image circle would fall off the edges, and cover the whole sensor. It would 'crop' the image. Magnified to 'view' at the same size, then, the smaller your sensor, the more you crop from the image circle the lens delivers, the bigger your subject 'looks' in the picture you look at. So, smaller sensors have the 'effect' of magnifying the subject, like a longer or 'zoom' lens. Hence so many lenses are quoted or marked as having an 'equivalent' focal length rather than their true one, and its an equivalence to the Angle of View you'd get from a longer focal length lens on a 35mm/FullFrame sensor camera. BUT the equivalence only holds for the angle of View.
As focal length reduces, normally so to does the closest focus distance, and the depth of field, front to back 'sharpness' at any aperture setting. at very short focal lengths, the closest focus distance can be tiny, and the Depth of field enormous, which can to a certain extent make focusing redundant. I have a 12mm fisheye lens for my 35mm film cameras, which is actually fixed focus because the close focus and depth of field is so short, 'everything' is effectively always in focus. I have an incredibly 'short' 4.5mm focal length fish-eye for my 'crop' sensor DSLR. That has SUCH a close focus distance I can literally put the front element against an object and it still be in focus... and again have so much depth of focus everything is sharp, no matter how far away it is. But I also have a little 'Action-Cam', which also has a 4.5mm focal length lens, but the sensor in it is so small, that lens is giving only the 'equivilent' angle of view of a 27mm (Mild Wide Angle) lens on 35mm/Full-Frame, due to the crop factor. BUT, the Depth of Field, front to back sharpness remains that of the 4.5mm lens; which is convenient as it makes that camera 'focus free', which is helpful for an action cam shooting video, and means it doesn't need to have a bulky mechanical focus system or automatic focus trying to track moving subjects to keep them sharp, making the camera bigger and more expensive....
However, point is, same effect is being exploited by phone-cams, to keep them compact and inexpensive, and it's helping enormously when you want to take a 'Landcape' to deliver a huge amount of depth of field sharpness, you wont get with larger sensor cameras, unless you 'stop down' and use a very small aperture, and even then, possibly still not 'as much' front to back sharpness as a smaller sensor and shorter lens. And, it makes focusing that much more critical, and your camera now has to have a more refined focusing system, and probably automatic focusing system.. and great as they may be, they still struggle to 'see in the dark'..
So whilst a 'better camera' may have settings that suggest a solution or work around to your 'low light' conundrum, they can start to work against you, rather than for you, Its ALL swings and roundabouts.. and THIS is where people start falling down that slippery slope, looking AT cameras rather than THROUGH them, looking for 'settings' and convincing themselves that its lack of gear, or lack of settings that is 'The' problem, rather than recognizing that 'The' problem isn't inside the camera, but outside, and you cant make a silk purse out of a pigs ear! And Photography is the art of making pictures with LIGHT.. if you don't have it, you don't have it! If I wanted to bake a cake, and don't have milk, eggs and marge in the fridge, no point pointing at the flour and blaming the fridge!
And it's STILL not about the camera giving YOU better chances, but YOU giving the camera better ones! and the further you start to dig into things, the more frustrating it often gets, and the more the camera 'can' do, the less it 'will' do... for you... and the more it demands FROM you to get anything. And unless you make that mental 'switch', and ask not what your camera can do for you but what can you do for your camera, it will make that slippery precipice into camera geekery ever so much more perilous; and leave you likely to tumble after the hoards all chasing a camera that 'gives them' a better chance, spending ever more money to get equipment that will NEVER pull its weight, as the person operating it never does, and who don't even realise that they could, let alone should!
Which brings us back around. Your not 'quite' at the beginning you thought you were. You have some form of picture maker, and you have given it ago. Advice that you need to find the TIME to use it, still applies.
Learning that it doesn't do a great job in low light is just one lesson. It can still probably teach you many many more, most of them other places it will struggle to do a great job, but with a little forethought some time and patience, COULD teach you when, where and how it could, IF you give it a little help, it could do an awful lot better. That lesson, learning or proving, you need to give the camera a chance rather than expect it to have all the aces up its sleeve. You may not be at the end of all that camera can do for you just yet.
Advice as far as choosing a better camera, I think still applies; the entry level DSLR's are pretty much right in the target zone. They can do a lot more for you, BUT, same rules apply, they will always start to run up against the buffers at some point, and 'struggle', and they wont do it all for you; you will still have to learn to recognize when and where you might get a good picture and when and where you might have to give the camera a little help.. and again, low light, you'll run into the same issues, and still neither the problem nor solution will be 'in' the camera, and 'help' may still be in using a tripod and timer, or recognizing that the light just isn't good; and you still need to find the time and patience and put in the effort....
You also need to have the camera with you... which as the camera gets bigger and bulkier, and situations beg 'accessories' to go with it, like a tripod, or a flash gun or whatever, becomes that much less likely, as it starts to become too push to stuff into pockets, and the shoulder bag gets left at home or in the car, and you start 'missing' impromptu photo ops; and have to find even MORE time, to make a dedicated photo-expedition, with the camera.
This, hints at the merits of consumer--compact or CSC cameras instead of a bulkier DSLR.. but I am sanguine on the notion. As said, CSC cameras can be fantastic tools, but they aren't really so appropriate to a beginner. I would be less sanguine about a consumer-compact; for a decade, a couple of these have been my 'pocket' camera and I have got some great results with them despite them being relatively limited, and giving them a little help, often with a hanky or rolled up jumper or something as an improvised 'tripod' and using the self timer, got some great 'low light' shots with them, as well as many other more or less challenging situations. Unfortunately that market has been squashed by the phone-cam, and better consumer compacts now are few and far between, and was actually a significant prompt for me to buy my DSLR four years ago. (and by some dint of irony, start putting my old 35mm 'compact' cameras back in my pocket! But that's another perversion!
In round up; to get going, and go a bit further, you need to change the mind set a little, and take the expectation 'to do the job' off the camera, and put it onto yourself more. That's the 'start' you wanted, and that alone could take you a fair bit further with the Camera-Phone. BUT you still want a 'proper' camera, and for that, the entry level DSLR still looms likely, and is probably your 'best bet';one would undoubtedly launch an expedition into the wonderful world of camera geekery and more pretentious photography, and an adventure of disappointments as you try ever more challenging things you 'might' do with one, and your hopes expectations and standards grow, so your results will seemingly become increasingly more poor in comparison.... before you make another mental adjustment or three and your endevours start to get a little better, as you learn how much YOU have to put in to get them... which is a path we have all been down.... But, all we can do is point you at the gate, and tell you what to expect, and point at a few of the puddles along the way you might want to step around....
So, off you go.... have FUN!
.
Probably not... but at least you have something to think about 
