12.—(1) Subject to paragraph (4), any street to be constructed under this Order shall be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the highway authority and shall, unless otherwise agreed, be maintained by and at the expense of DLRL for a period of 12 months from its completion and at the expiry of that period by and at the expense of the highway authority.
(2) Subject to paragraph (4), where a street is altered or diverted under this Order, the altered or diverted part of the street shall, when completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the street authority, unless otherwise agreed, be maintained by and at the expense of DLRL for a period of 12 months from its completion and at the expiry of that period by and at the expense of the street authority.
(3) Nothing in this Order shall have effect in relation to street works as respects which the provisions of Part 3 of the 1991 Act apply.
(4) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply in relation to the structure of any bridge or tunnel carrying a street over or under any railway of DLRL.
(5) In any action against DLRL in respect of loss or damage resulting from any failure by it to maintain a street under this article, it shall be a defence (without prejudice to any other defence or the application of the law relating to contributory negligence) to prove that DLRL had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the street to which the action relates was not dangerous to traffic.
(6) For the purposes of a defence under paragraph (5), the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters—
(a)the character of the street and the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it;
(b)the standard of maintenance appropriate for a street of that character and used by such traffic;
(c)the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the street;
(d)whether DLRL knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the street to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to users of the street;
(e)where DLRL could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the street before the cause of action arose, what warning notices of its condition had been displayed,
but for the purposes of such a defence it is not relevant to prove that DLRL had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of the part of the street to which the action relates unless it is also proved that DLRL had given him proper instructions with regard to the maintenance of the street and that he had carried out those instructions.